Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (CASTLEFIELD) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Unemployment

Mr. O'Neill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take further action to reduce unemployment in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): Our first priority is to reduce inflation and establish a sound economy in which industry will be encouraged to expand and to create secure jobs. The measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 March will make a further contribution to this objetcive.

Mr. O'Neill: In the light of the deterioration since the Government's first Budget, with the dramatic drop in the rise in the number of people in employment, the increase in the long-term unemployed and the decrease in the number of vacancies, is there anything in the Budget to which the Minister can specifically allude that will benefit Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: I understand that the hon. Gentleman taught economics before coming to the House. He will therefore know that the difficulties experienced in Scotland at the moment in employment are a direct result of the policies of the previous Labour Government 18 months or 2 years ago.
On the particular points that the hon. Gentleman makes, there are many items

in the Budget that will be helpful towards creating new jobs in Scotland. Tax changes and incentives to invest and the way that these have been accepted by industry mean that the Budget is a good omen for the future.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister accept that his reply to the hon. Gentleman was one of the best pieces of party political codswallop for a long time? In view of the fact that unemployment is increasing in Scotland startlingly and that Scotland will not receive any share of oil resources lying off the coast in terms of budgetary revenue, will the Minister say how the Government intend to reduce unemployment in Scotland? Will he give a simple answer—how?

Mr. Fletcher: Scotland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, is enjoying the benefits of North Sea oil. About 60,000 to 70,000 jobs in Scotland are a direct result of North Sea oil. Jobs are still being lost in Scotland as a result of the previous Government's indiscriminate support for industry without regard to viability. The hon. Gentleman should know that in his area of Dundee and elsewhere new jobs are being created as industry expands with the incentives provided in the Budget.

Mr. Sproat: Since the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) asked my hon. Friend to point to one thing in the Budget that would help cut unemployment in Scotland, will my hon. Friend remind him that there were no fewer than 15 proposals to help small businesses in Scotland? These could make a massive contribution to cutting unemployment in Scotland. If he wanted another, what about the enterprise zone in Clydeside?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is correct. The Budget is the most remarkable and the best in many years for small businesses and investment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call one further hon. Member from either side before the Front Bench, but we shall have to move quicker afterwards.

Mr. Eadie: Did the Minister check, before answering that question, the speech made yesterday by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry,


one of the most gloom-laden speeches this House has ever experienced? Is the hon. Gentleman saying to the people of Scotland, as a result of the Budget, that there will be almost ¼ million unemployed in Scotland as a consequence of his Government's policy? Is that what he is telling the people of Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: We are telling the people of Scotland that our first priority is to reduce the rate of inflation without which there can be no prospect for jobs in Scotland or anywhere else.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does not my hon. Friend agree that few things could be more damaging to the prospects for employment in Scotland than the serious threat of a Scottish Assembly with economic interventionist powers as proposed at the last Scottish Labour Party conference? Is it not just as well that wild-eyed, bearded fanatics who dominated that conference have no influence with either the Shadow Cabinet or the Parliamentary Labour Party?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Gentleman to whom he referred is equally lacking in influence in this place.

Mr. Millan: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so complacent about unemployment? Why does he not answer the question about the projected rise in unemployment for next year? Is it not now inevitable, given the current rate of inflation and the Government's disastrous economic policies, that by this time next year we shall have no fewer than 250,000 unemployed in Scotland? That will take us back to the conditions which obtained in the 1930s.

Mr. Fletcher: We have never shirked the fact that unemployment in Scotland is at present on a rising trend. None of us knows what figures might be reached before economic circumstances improve. But the right hon. Gentleman will know that when his party took office unemployment stood at half the level it had reached when his party left office. We are starting with the high level we inherited and we intend to reduce that level over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to say it, but Scots questions are getting as long as Welsh questions.

Civil Servants (Location)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants employed by the Scottish Office are based in Edinburgh.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): The number of civil servants employed by the Scottish Office, including the prison service, who are based in Edinburgh was 5,784 at 1 March 1980.

Mr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State accept that that figure combined with the figure for other Departments highlights the importance of the Civil Service as an employer in Edinburgh? Does the right hon. Gentleman further accept that the Government's cutbacks mean that there will be precious few jobs in the Civil Service for Edinburgh school leavers this year? Does he accept that that fact, combined with the fact that unemployment in Edinburgh is above the national average, is ample justification for a reconsideration of the Government's decision to downgrade Edinburgh's development area status?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is right in pointing to the importance of the Civil Service as an employer in Edinburgh. I might add that the Scottish Office and those employed there do an extremely good job and deserve credit for that.
It is, happily, the case that of the 9,500 unemployed school leavers in Scotland only 360 are in Edinburgh. However, there is no denying the fact that if Civil Service staff has to be reduced there will be fewer opportunities for new jobs. We hope to see those young people getting new jobs in other industries, particularly in the new small businesses which will be created as a result of the Budget.

Mr. John MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether those figures represent a decrease on the figure for the corresponding period last year?

Mr. Younger: These figures represent a decrease on the figure for the same period last year. It has been difficult to achieve that, but it is necessary because the country cannot afford to carry the number of civil servants that we would like.

Budget Strategy

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the effects of the Budget on Scotland.

Mr. Younger: The Budget strategy, notably the specific measures to stimulate investment such as those relating to small firms, will be particularly useful in solving the problems of Scotland's economy.

Mr. Canavan: How many thousands of jobs will be lost in Scotland as a result of the £400 million cut in public expenditure in Scotland? In view of the fact that these cuts will mean a decrease in essential services such as housing and education, a decrease in the number of jobs in both the public and private sector and a massive increase in rents and rates, does not the Secretary of State realise that the Budget spells absolute disaster for Scotland?

Mr. Younger: The greatest disaster for Scotland would be for inflation to get completely out of control as it was well on the way to being under the previous Government. There is no doubt that when public spending has to be reduced there is, in the short term, a reduction in employment. The hon. Gentleman should have thought of that when he was supporting the previous Government and allowing public expenditure to get right out of control.

Mr. Henderson: What proposals has my right hon. Friend, and what action is he taking, to ensure that Scotland will benefit from the proposals for enterprise zones announced in the Budget?

Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend may have noticed, two of the suggested sites are in Scotland. I am speedily consulting the local authorities concerned so that we may come to a decision as to which site will be the preferred one for Scotland. I am certain that it will be of great benefit.

Mr. Millan: How can the Secretary of State talk about encouraging investment in Scotland when high interest rates are having a savage effect on private investment and when the public expenditure White Paper, in relation to housing, envisages that at the end of the period covered by the White Paper housing

investment in Scotland will be less than 50 per cent. of the target projected by the Labour Government? That will have serious consequences not only for those looking for homes in Scotland but also for the construction industry.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman must take his own responsibility for that. The high interest rates, as he well knows, are not the desired policy of the Government. They are the result of inflation and public expenditure being allowed to get out of control. If the right hon. Gentleman had thought of these matters two years ago when he was making disastrous public expenditure decisions we would not be in this state now.

General Teaching Council

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman of the General Teaching Council.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I have at present no plans for a meeting with the chairman of the General Teaching Council.

Mr. Foulkes: I wonder if the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary, would consider having a meeting with the chairman of the General Teaching Council to explain to him that the future of the colleges of education is not just a matter of the numbers of teachers in training but also of the other courses the colleges now offer and the valuable service that they give to the communities in which they are situated? May I have a categorical assurance from the Secretary of State that because Craigie college is fulfilling these criteria there is no intention to close it?

Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I do not require to meet the chairman of the GTC to learn of the services that are provided by the colleges in Scotland. Craigie college, in line with other colleges, has been serving Scotland well over the years. However, we must bear in mind that the drastic reduction in the number of pupils will have some effect on the future of the colleges.

Mr. Lang: Does my hon. Friend agree that his right hon. Friend's record in saving educational colleges in Scotland is second to none and that he does not


require a lesson from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) on this matter?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct and most helpful.

Mr. Harry Ewing: If the record of the Secretary of State has been so good in the past, may we have an assurance that he will do everything possible to maintain that record and that none of the 10 colleges of education will be closed? Can we also have an assurance that the Under-Secretary will keep his word that if there are proposals for changes in the colleges of education he will publish a discussion document in advance of those changes?

Mr. Fletcher: There were half a dozen points in that question. In response I can only say that the Government Front Bench will be united on the future of the colleges unlike the Labour Party.

Mr. Lambie: When the right hon. Gentleman does meet the chairman of the General Teaching Council will he remind him that the GTC has no right under statute to recommend closure of any college of education in Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman also remember that, in addition to the number of children entering schools, he should consider geographical and community needs before deciding to close any college in Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: We will certainly consider the geographical location of the colleges as the hon. Gentleman would expect us to do. The GTC has every right to give advice when one considers that advice has been accepted on this matter by both parties, when in government, during the past few years.

National Farmers Union

Mr. Pollock: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland.

Mr. Myles: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he will meet the President of the National Farmers Union of Scotland.

Mr. Younger: I have met the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland on a number of occasions since taking office and I shall be arranging another meeting with him shortly.

Mr. Pollock: When my right hon. Friend next meets the president of the NFU will he discuss with him the disturbing fall in the size of the national dairy herd particularly in the north of Scotland Milk Marketing Board area? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government, who still retain control over the retail price of liquid milk, will accept their obligations to producers as well as to consumers? Will he take whatever political decisions are necessary to protect the incomes of our dairy farmers?

Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend knows, we have increased the retail price of milk by 22 per cent. since last summer but we must be careful that such increases do not reduce the uptake of the product. As my hon. Friend also knows, we have received a report on the position of producers and consumers and we are examining it carefully.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to react to the NFU proposals for the Highlands? If so, will he say when he might do so?

Mr. Younger: We are evaluating the points made by the NFU on this matter. It will be one of the subjects raised the next time I meet the president of the Scottish National Farmers Union.

Mr. Myles: When next the Secretary of State meets the president of the NFU will he discuss the structural problems of agriculture in Scotland where the larger farms are continuing to expand? Is he aware that they are squeezing out the smaller farms and thereby doing away with the bottom rung of the farming ladder? Is he aware that that means that young people and farm workers find it difficult to make a start on their own account?

Mr. Younger: The problem of openings for young people in farming is a cause of anxiety in the NFU. I have discussed that problem with the NFU and shall be doing so again. This is a difficult period for everyone involved in farming, but in the past year we have managed to make no less than three devaluations in the green pound, two increases in the milk price and a substantial addition to hill subsidies. That is not at all bad at a time of great economic difficulty.

Mr. John Home Robertson: If the Secretary of State is interested in increasing


the consumption of liquid milk in Scotland should he not announce an initiative which will enable all regional education authorities in Scotland to take advantage of the Common Market scheme under which four-fifths of the cost of providing free school milk can be funded out of European funds?

Mr. Younger: That suggestion is made from time to time. I am not aware that there is any inhibition which prevents local education authorities from taking part in the scheme if they want to.

Mr. McQuarrie: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the National Farmers Union will he discuss the serious situation which is arising in the agriculture industry, particularly in the smaller farms, where labour is being laid off because of the sharp fall in the price of their products?

Mr. Younger: I am well aware of the position. The annual discussions on the price-fixing arrangements as part of the common agriculture policy are in train. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of State, Scottish Office are aware of the problems and are bearing them in mind in the discussions.

North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board

Mr. John MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he intends to meet the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I have no immediate plans for a further meeting with the chairman of the board.

Mr. MacKay: Has my hon. Friend had a meeting with the board in order to discuss the proposed surcharge on consumers using electricity on those islands where electricity is generated by diesel? Will he consider asking for a consultation with the chairman of the board in order to tell him that the board's decision is unfair to the small islands which are being hit in that way? Will he ask the chairman to revert to his previous policy of uniform charging for all consumers in the Highlands and Islands?

Mr. Fletcher: We have not had a meeting with the chairman of the board on that subject. However, representations have been made from the electricity con-

sultative council for the North of Scotland District among others. My right hon. Friend is considering the representations before deciding whether action should be taken.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the surcharge on diesel generation was rightly regarded as iniquitous and was abolished in 1965? Is he aware that the policy contradicts the social remit written into the board's constitution? May we have an assurance that the Scottish Office will fight the board's suggestion?

Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend is considering the representations. We are aware of the strength of feeling and we shall try to reach an early conclusion on the issue.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the Minister be more categorical? Will he respond to his hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) and say directly that he believes that the hydroboard has made a wrong decision and that the Government will take action to reverse it.

Mr. Fletcher: It would not be helpful to any statutory action that my right hon. Friend might decide to take if I were to reply in the terms suggested.

Educational Institute of Scotland

Mr. Ancram: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to meet the Educational Institute of Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I had a useful meeting with representatives of the institute on 26 February. There are at present no plans for a further meeting.

Mr. Ancram: When my hon. Friend meets the Educational Institute of Scotland again will he discuss the mediumterm requirements for teachers in Scotland? I accept that school rolls are falling, but does my hon. Friend accept that the birth rate in Scotland is rising? Will he assure the House that he will make provision for that?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, we shall certainly make provision for the rise in the birth rate in our calculations about pupil numbers. Teacher staffing is constantly referred to by the EIS which realises that the present level of staffing, whether or


not it accepts it, is in excess of the Red Book standards.

Mr. James Hamilton: When the Minister next meets the institute will he discuss the possibility of increasing the block grant for education to the Strathclyde regional council? Will he bear in mind that many of the schools in that area are being axed because of Government policy? Is he aware of two such schools in my area which are urgently required?

Mr. Fletcher: Schools are closing because of the decline in pupil numbers. It is not true to suggest that schools are being closed because of the Government's financial decisions.

Mr. Peter Fraser: I congratulate the Minister on the bold initiative that he took this week on Munn and Dunning. Can he tell the EIS when he anticipates that the proposals that he has made will be fully implemented?

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We announced a three-year development programme this week. It is expected that the first assessments will be made in 1984 and the syllabuses will be prepared on the basis of Munn and Dunning. Thereafter, the full programme should be available to all schools in Scotland.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the EIS's opposition to the Government's proposals to spend public money on private fee-paying schools, what response has the Minister had to his discusssion document on the assisted places scheme? Is it not fair to tell parents now that even if that half-baked scheme gets off the ground, there is no chance at all of it continuing after the next general election because the incoming Labour Government will abolish it right away?

Mr. Fletcher: The half-baked scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been operated in various forms in Scotland for many years under both parties. I expect it to continue for many years to come, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister undertake not to apply the staffing standards in schools too rigidly at a time of falling school levels? Is he aware that in a secondary school in my constituency the

slight expected drop in intake in August could lead to a reduction in staff of three? Is he aware that that makes the organisation of a school extremely difficult? Will he be generous in his approach to the financing of local authorities?

Mr. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The diseconomies of scale apply when pupil numbers are declining. My right hon. Friend made allowance for that in the recent rate support grant figures.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister aware that his lack of knowledge of the brief for which he is responsible is causing serious concern among educationists in Scotland? Is he aware that the meeting with the EIS to which he referred was regarded by the EIS as unsatisfactory? When does the Minister propose to meet the EIS to explain how he proposes to reduce the number of teachers in Scotland by the 7,600 referred to by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman always spoils his case by gross exaggeration. He should know, as I do, that if the EIS is dissatisfied with any meeting that it has with me it will tell me and not ask the hon. Gentleman to do it.

Lord Provost of Edinburgh

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to meet the Lord Provost of Edinburgh.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Brown: In view of Edinburgh district council's abysmal house building record, will the Minister give a special award to the Lord Provost for his consistent approach to Tory Party policy? What advice has the Minister to give to the many thousands of people on the housing waiting lists who have no opportunity of a house in the near future?

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's allegation. Edinburgh has a fine record under successive Conservative housing chairmen in providing for the housing needs of the community, as I know as a constituency Member from that city. The Secretary of State has in-


creased the resources available to Edinburgh on the non-housing revenue account to allow young couples to have greater access to loans to purchase or improve their homes.

Mr. Ancram: When my hon. Friend meets the Lord Provost will he discuss the possibility of protecting the hard hit ratepayers of the city of Edinburgh by restoring it to an all-purpose authority?

Mr. Rifkind: It is significant that Edinburgh's proposed rate increase is only 18 per cent. compared with the over 42 per cent. proposed by the Lothian region. The Stodart committee is examining the future of local government and it is able to make any recommendations that are consistent with the viability of existing local authorities.

Mr. Douglas: With his knowledge of planning law will the Minister tell the chairman of any district or regional councils how the Government's half-baked proposals for enterprise zones will affect existing industry, particularly small businesses in the Dunfermline district?

Mr. Rifkind: It is unlikely that there will be an enterprise zone in Edinburgh. Nevertheless, it has been widely accepted that the sort of areas likely to be chosen for enterprise zones will have little prospect of encouraging industry without the kind of incentives the enterprise zone concept will provide.

Human Tissue Transplants

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his statement, Official Report, 5 March 1980, column 464, he will make a statement outlining what specific action he has taken to encourage the possibility of a wide debate on recent court decisions involving the admissibility of evidence in relation to computers and opting-out schemes for kidney transplants.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): I shall be glad to welcome any debate on these matters whether in this House or elsewhere; but I am not convinced that recent surveys show much support for the hon. Gentleman's proposal that individuals wishing to "opt out" of having organs removed from their bodies after death should have their wishes recorded on a central computer.

Mr. Dalyell: Is that a parliamentary way of saying that the hon. Gentleman has done nothing?

Mr. Fairgrieve: No, it is not. It is the normal way of pointing out to an hon. Member that hardly a day goes by without this whole subject of transplants and organ removals being in the national newspapers. The Leader of the House is well aware of the number of subjects for which debates are requested and takes them all into consideration.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is there not genuine concern about the fact that many organs that could be used are lost because of that critical margin of time for decision, which concerns the deceased and the relatives?
In view of what he said, is it not proper for the Under-Secretary of State to want to do all that he can to try to promote further discussion?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I am trying to promote further discussion, and the hon. Gentleman knows that we are fortunate in Scotland in that we have a higher realisation of the kidney donor scheme than in other parts of the United Kingdom as a result of the work done by my Department.

Tourism

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of the promotion of tourism in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: In my view, there is need to improve the co-ordination of tourism promotion and tourist information services in Scotland. This must be achieved primarily by co-operation between the Scottish Tourist Board, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the local authorities. These agencies and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are considering now what measures they should take to work more closely together in this field, and I expect to hear shortly the views of the Tourist Board and the Convention about action which might be taken by the Government to assist them in this objective.

Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with regional councils the important role that they should be playing in these matters which they do not


always do? Will he further ensure that there is more co-ordination at local level between all the interested parties, not least the trade itself?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I expect that the views of COSLA will show that it considers that regional councils need to do more. I hope that more co-operation at local level can be achieved. I am sure that the chairman of the Tourist Board is well aware of that.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the Secretary of State not be too diverted, because of this tinkering with the institutions that is being suggested to him, and recognise the value of tourism in generating jobs? Will he ensure that those institutions are given the resources to maximise the benefits of tourism for Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want a prolonged period of uncertainty during which all the institutions are under the microscope, but it is timely to look at the co-ordination between the various bodies, and that is what is happening under the new chairman.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable architectural heritage in the West of Scotland that is now being increasingly appreciated by tourists? Will he ensure that this is fully taken on board in any discussions he has?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend's view and I will make sure that the chairman of the Tourist Board bears that in mind.

British Broadcasting Corporation Education Service

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he intends to meet the Broadcasting Council for Scotland to discuss the British Broadcasting Corporation Education Service.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I have no plans at present to discuss this matter with the Council.

Mr. Maxton: When the Minister meets the Broadcasting Council, will he discuss the serious effect on Scottish education that the proposal to eliminate the broadcasting service will have, particularly in

rural areas? We welcome his statement today that he has asked the BBC to reconsider, but that is not good enough. The service is used by the education authorities in Scotland. Therefore will the Minister now announce a grant to the BBC from the Scottish Education Department so that the services can be continued?

Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend has already tabled a reply to a parliamentary question regarding the granting of funds to the BBC. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that this is very much a matter for the BBC and I regret that its assessment of its priorities should have this result.

Mr. Bill Walker: When he next meets the council, will my hon. Friend give some attention to the growing concern in Scotland about the way in which the BBC spends the finances it has? Radio Scotland leaves much to be desired and some of these funds would be better channelled towards the education service.

Mr. Fletcher: I can only repeat that I hope these views are being expressed strongly to the BBC.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Cannot the Minister for Education give an explanation to the House as to why he has not sought a meeting with the BBC on educational programmes? Is it that he has no interest in the subject of education? Would it not be disastrous for Scottish school children if they receive their learning partly through programmes which are brought from England and have no respect for Scotland's traditional interests, language and literature?

Mr. Fletcher: Both my right hon. Friend and I have had separate meetings with the BBC on these matters.

Mr. Dewar: Are we to take it from the Minister's first reply that in his view the BBC's priorities are wrong and that he would like the Scottish Schools Broadcasting Service to be saved at the expense of something else? If so, would he say what that something else is? Does he not agree that it is useless to say that the BBC will reconsider unless one is prepared to give the Corporation the wherewithal to do it?

Mr. Fletcher: I am saying that this is essentially a matter for the BBC and my


right hon. Friend has no basis on which he can intervene. As regards the BBC's priorities I am making it as clear as I can that I should have thought that there are other areas where savings might have been made before educational broadcasting and the orchestra became involved.

Mr. Sproat: When my hon. Friend meets the Council will he draw to its attention not only the miserably low figures for Radio Scotland but also the fact that the staff levels of BBC Scotland have been increased by 35 per cent. in the past seven years? Would not both these areas be better suited to cuts than the education service or the Scottish Symphony Orchestra.

Mr. Fletcher: Judging by the correspondence columns of the Scotsman over the past year many suggestions were made as to where the BBC in Scotland might make savings before this item was talked about. Now that these matters are under consideration as proposed cuts, it is obvious that the majority opinion in Scotland would like educational broadcasting and the Scottish Symphony Orchestra to be saved.

Mr. Millan: Is not the Minister aware that these cuts in school broadcasting will be an absolute disgrace? The Secretary of State is the custodian of Scottish education and he cannot simply wring his hands and say how unfortunate all this is. We want some practical help from the Government. They have the power to give some financial assistance and the sums involved as regards school broadcasting are small. We want some initiative from the Government and so far we have had nothing from them.

Mr. Fletcher: It is essentially a matter for the BBC, but the crisis would not have arisen if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had raised the BBC licence fee earlier, when he was in office.

Children in Care (Injuries)

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children who were under the care and supervision of social work departments suffered non-accidental injuries in 1979.

Mr. Fairgrieve: This information is not available centrally.

Mr. Walker: I am disappointed with that answer. Does not my hon. Friend acknowledge that there is growing public concern at the number of cases of children who have suffered abuse whilst under the care and supervision of social work departments? Further, will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the requests that have been made for an inquiry into the circumstances leading up to the deaths of Tracy O'Day, Angela Burns and Mandy McGibbon?

Mr. Fairgrieve: There are a number of questions involved here. However, my right hon. Friend is at present considering the three cases referred to by my hon. Friend and will come to a decision in due course. As regards the general question of the worries that my right hon. Friend and I have about such cases, I remind my hon. Friend that the Leader of the House has also indicated that the Government are considering the training of social workers in this area and will be reporting when we hope to take some action.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Will not the hon. Gentleman slap down more vigorously the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) for seeking cheap publicity over circumstances that cause enormous distress to the innocent parties involved, such as friends, relatives, and indeed, social workers? Will he make it quite clear that he supports the idea that no social department can solve all the individual problems of society?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) is doing what he is doing in the best interests of social work in Scotland. I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman said and take the necessary action.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the Minister recognise that, despite all the concern that has been expressed, the meagre additional provision for this area of activity in the public expenditure White Paper, and with inflation at its present rate, means that there will inevitably be a cutback in the level of services which are provided at present? Therefore, the concern which is now being expressed is likely to increase in the future.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. He knows perfectly well that in the figures for next year we have allowed for a growth in social work.

Later—

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on question No. 14, and in particular on the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). You will recall that during his supplementary question, he referred to the Tracy O'Day case. Unfortunately she was murdered. Her family live in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman gave me no notification that he intended to raise one of my constituency cases. Is it still a custom of the House that when an hon. Member intends to refer to another hon. Member's constituency—particularly on such a sensitive subject—he adopts the normal courtesy of advising the other hon. Member concerned?

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we survive by observing our courtesies, one to another. If an hon. Member wishes to refer to another hon. Member's constituency, it is courteous to let him know. I did not expect the hon. Gentleman to know that. I remind the House that I am caused difficulty from time to time because hon. Members have asked questions which appear on the Order Paper about other hon. Members' constituencies. Obviously, I am unaware that they concern other hon. Members' constituencies. I hope that courtesies will be observed.

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of abusing the conventions of the House. Indeed, I always hope to emulate your splendid example, Mr. Speaker. I only wish that many other hon. Members would do so.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, not for the kind words about me, but because some hon. Members are unaware of some of our unwritten courtesies and conventions. They mean as much as our Standing Orders.

Scottish CBI and Scottish TUC

Mr. McElhone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when next he intends

to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I have met representatives of the STUC several times since taking office and have made it clear that we are prepared to meet them at any time they wish.

Mr. McElhone: When the Secretary of State next meets the STUC, will he explain why the Government, committed as they are to massive reductions in public expenditure, can under the Tenant's Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill allocate an additional £1 million for rent allowances? Is he not aware that that money, plus the estimated £1·5 million in extra social security payments, will go straight into the pockets of private landlords at a time when the Government are cutting essential services in Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman could have made his question a little more specific. If he has a particular example in mind of something in the Bill which he thinks will not work properly, he should address a more specific question to me.

Mr. Ancram: Will my hon. Friend ask the STUC to explain how on earth the proposed day of inaction on 14 May will do anything to help promote productivity or prosperity of the sort which Scotland needs?

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is a senseless action in which to participate, particularly at a time when hon. Members of both sides of the House are concerned about the future prospects of the Scottish economy. It is also very damaging to schoolchildren, whose history examinations are being brought forward by three weeks just to meet this ridiculous protest by the unions in Scotland.

Mr. Norman Hogg: When the Minister next meets the STUC, will he discuss the unemployment situation and at the same time give an assurance that there will be no selling of public assets in the new towns in Scotland?

Mr. Fletcher: One invariably discusses unemployment when one meets the STUC. The selling of public assets in the new towns is obviously in the best interests of the growth and development of those new towns, and we are actively


encouraging the new towns to go on doing that.

Mr. Lang: In the light of recent experience, does my hon. Friend agree that the working membership of unions seem to have a better appreciation of the economic facts of life than their leaderships? In that context, will he commend to the leaders of the STUC the provisions for secret ballots which are contained in the Employment Bill?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is obvious that, had there been a secret ballot in the steel industry a couple of months ago, that strike would have been resolved within a matter of weeks rather than months.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister seriously pretending that a secret ballot in the steel industry two or three months ago would have voted in favour of a 2 per cent. increase? Surely even he appreciates that that would not have happened. As to the day of action, how on earth can the Minister pretend that a Government who steal two weeks pension increase from old-age pensioners, cut educational provision and cause the loss of 200 to 300 jobs each day, can expect trade unionists to stand back and do nothing about it?

Mr. Fletcher: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman exaggerates his point. It is difficult to know what particular point he was addressing to me. Therefore, there is nothing that I can say to him.

Crofter Housing

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now raise the level of grant and loan for crofter housing.

Mr. Younger: I have nothing to add to my reply to the right hon. Member on 8 November.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a disappointing reply in view of the increase in costs since the sum was previously raised? Is he also aware that his noble Friend the Minister of State has turned down two applications from constituents of mine on the grounds that they are unmarried? Will he inform his noble Friend that it is no part of his business to act as a marriage guidance counsellor for the Western Isles, and will

he ensure that those applications are approved forthwith?

Mr. Younger: I am always anxious to be as helpful as I can to crofters. I would have thought that the present scheme is very helpful, as the interest rate on any loans is 31½ per cent. That will open the eyes of house buyers in other places. A crofter who is building a new house can get a grant of £4,000 and a loan of up to £5,500 at the lower rate of interest. I should have thought that that was pretty generous help.

Strathclyde Region (Job Loss)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to deal with the continuing job loss in the Strathclyde region.

Mr. Younger: Our policies aim to create the soundly based economy in which industry can expand in Strathclyde as elsewhere. The changes we have made in regional policy are designed to concentrate support upon areas of most need, including West Central Scotland whose problems are recognised by our decision to extend the special development area. We have announced our intention of creating an enterprise zone on Clydeside and we will continue to encourage by all possible means the development of viable enterprises providing secure employment within the region.

Mr. Dewar: I understand from the Minister that there is a degree of urgency with regard to his talks on the enterprise zone. When will he be able to make an announcement about the location? Can he also say when we shall have further details about the relaxation of normal planning regulations and other changes, and also whether any discussion document or Green Paper will be issued? Does he further accept that, whatever may be the potential in the enterprise zone, the job creation prospects are very small—a drop in the bucket—compared with the loss that will result from the Government's fiercely inflationary policies?

Mr. Younger: I hope that no one will be tempted to talk down a good, new idea just because it is new. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his constituency interests, will do everything he possibly can to encourage an enterprise zone and to make it successful. The purpose of


consulting the local authorities is to get their views. However, we have given the main outline of the scheme and we hope to complete discussions within a few weeks.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that certain job losses in Strathclyde are both inevitable and desirable? In particular, does he not agree that as a result of the success of the Government's economic policy and of electoral redistribution there will be considerable job losses in Strathclyde among Labour Members of Parliament in due course, and that that will be a jolly good thing?

Mr. Younger: I am always sad to see anyone losing his job, particularly a Labour Member of Parliament, but I am sadder for some than for others.

Mr. Buchan: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the only job loss which is desirable is his own? Will he stop talking the economic rubbish that we have heard from him, such as growth coming to Scotland through small businesses? He knows that that is a nonsense. He knows that the Budget Papers have predicted a 1 per cent. growth over the next three years. As that is mainly in oil, does it not mean a lack of growth in every aspect of Scottish industry and a consequent job loss? Will he cut out the nonsense?

Mr. Younger: Of course, the hon. Gentleman's last point is the very problem which we, and the previous Government, have wrestled with for years. I am sorry and surprised that the hon. Gentleman has cast aspersions on the role of small businesses, especially as they provide more than one-third of the jobs in Scotland. We are in no position to turn our noses up at that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do all that he can to encourage small businesses.

Mr. Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a seminar within the Strathclyde region at the earliest possible date of leaders of industry, the trade unions and Scottish Labour Members of Parliament in order that they can understand the great prospects which could flow from grasping the opportunities presented by enterprise zones?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my lion. Friend. I have many responsibilities, but

I am glad to say that one of them is not running seminars for Scottish Labour Members of Parliament.

Mr. Millan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement made on Budget day about enterprise zones is largely incomprehensible? So far as one can understand it, the advantages seem to be marginal. However, I understand that the Scottish Office has been unable to give any more details. Will the Secretary of State consider making a further and more detailed statement about what is involved in the enterprise zone and what the typical advantages, perhaps in money terms, would be for a company which establishes itself in that zone? There is real concern that at present there is apparently so little detail about the concept.

Mr.Younger: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman feels that there is a lack of detail. I shall do all I possibly can to give him the maximum information. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend had given quite a lot of detail in his announcement. For example, incoming firms will be exempted from development land tax; they will receive relief from rates and the local authorities will be compensated for that also there will be a reduction in bureaucracy and form filling for these firms. If the right hon. Gentleman wants more information I shall do my utmost to give him as much as possible.

Mr. Myles: Will my right hon Friend take steps to encourage employment in the Grampian region so that we can take some—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have enough to do in dealing with Strathclyde now. In view of the length of questions this afternoon, I think I owe an apology to the Welsh for what I said earlier.

Mr. Foulkes: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State is in favour of good ideas, will he not agree that the truck produced by Stonefield Vehicles is a good idea? Will he give an assurance that he will not put any ultimatum to the Scottish Development Agency about private investment in Stonefield Vehicles in Cumnock? Will he also give an assurance that if this company requires additional finance from the SDA, and it has enough money to provide the cash—the Secretary


of State has said that the SDA has more money than it knows what to do with—he will not veto the money from that source?

Mr. Younger: I am very glad that the vehicle produced by Stonefields' has had good reports from those who have tried it. I have been doing my utmost through my Department and the SDA to help to provide a viable future for the company which depends essentially on the entry of private enterprise into it. I thought that at one time the hon. Member sounded a bit doubtful about the wisdom of that, but I hope that he is now wholly converted.

HUMAN TISSUE TRANSPLANTS

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer in theOfficial Report,column 473, 5 March, he will remind procurators fiscal by circular that they must ensure in advance that human organs for transplant can be released if human lives are to be saved, and if permission is granted.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): Circulars giving information and advice on the subject of human organs for transplant purposes were issued to procurators fiscal by the Crown Office in 1970, 1975 and 1977. In addition, the subject has been discussed informally at seminars and meetings of procurators fiscal. I am satisfied that procurators fiscal are already perfectly aware of the need to have available human organs for transplant purposes while ensuring that all due safeguards are complied with.

Mr. Dalyell: Even though the Solicitor-General is satisfied, does he agree that perhaps doctors have certain inhibitions because no doctor wants to become entangled with the procurator fiscal? Why not have a circular?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With great respect, I know of no case in which a doctor has been inhibited. Nor do I know any reason why any doctor should have any apprehension about the co-operation and the help of the procurator fiscal. If the hon. Member knows of any case, I hope that he will let me know about it and I will write to him.

LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND

Mr. Ancram: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he plans to meet the Law Society of Scotland.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no plans at present to meet the Law Society of Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: When my hon. and learned Friend meets the Law Society of Scotland will he discuss with it whether it thinks that under the present procedure there is enough time for counsel and solicitors to prepare cases on indictment which appear before the Glasgow High Court?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Crown Office gives as much notice as possible. Regrettably this is not always very long. I intend to prosecute Mr. Speaker next week in the Glasgow High Court and I shall see the position for myself—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we will all treat the Solicitor-General for Scotland with greater respect now.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling the accused to order. The timing will be improved if the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is enacted, as it provides that a trial diet in an indictment should be not less than 29 clear days after service of the indictment, and that should be ample time for preparation.

Mr. Ron Brown: When the Minister next meets the Law Society will he discuss the allegations of Mr. David Anderson about the cover-up by the Tory establishment in Edinburgh regarding his own position as a former Member of Parliament and indeed, as Solicitor-General for Scotland?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, I shall not discuss that matter. Any question of an inquiry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. His predecessor the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) put certain documents in the Library. I suggest that the hon. Member consults them.

Mr. Peter Fraser: When the Solicitor-General meets the Law Society, will he


discuss its announcement that a junior counsel appearing alone at the High Court in Glasgow will now get a daily fee of £140, or a fee of £90 for a waiting day during which he just drinks coffee? Will my hon. and learned Friend do what he can to introduce a system of fixed diets for High Court trials in Scotland?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am extremely sympathetic to my hon. Friend's views. I greatly regret the waste of public money which goes on either waiting days or on late pleas by all parts of the profession. The question is which will save more money—fixed diets or fluid diets? I am anxious to do everything I can to ensure the saving of public money on these matters.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Solicitor-General make definite arrangements to meet the Law Society and ask it to consider Lord Grieve's comments yesterday in the Court of Session, where he made a fairly strong critical attack on firms of lawyers who have represented both clients in a divorce case? He pointed out that although lawyers from the same company handled both clients, separate accounts were rendered. In Lord Grieve's opinion, had a joint account been rendered, it would have been much smaller. As the Law Society is responsible for fees will the Solicitor General take that report from today's edition of The Scotsman and ask the Law Society to consider the matter?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising that very important matter. I shall look into the particular circumstances, and raise the matter with the Law Society. I will then write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Lambie: When the hon. and learned Member next meets the Law Society will he remind it that most people in Scotland now think of that society as a mutual admiration and protection society for lawyers? When will he abolish it?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not think that that is either a very well-informed or helpful remark. It is important that, wherever any profession falls short of its principles and standards, there should be a society to ensure that high standards are kept.

LORD JUSTICE GENERAL

Mr. Dewar: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when next he intends to meet the Lord Justice General.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no plans at present to meet the Lord Justice General.

Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. and learned Member consider discussing with the Lord Justice General the effect of the report which is associated with that gentleman's name, and is concerned with minimum life sentences in cases of murder? Is the Solicitor-General aware that in another place this provision, which was a specific Tory Party manifesto pledge, was rudely thrown out of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill? Is it the Government's intention to seek to reinstate that provision in the Commons, and will he note that if any such retrograde step is made it will be firmly opposed?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, I will be very happy to discuss this matter with the Lord Justice General. But I take the view that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) needs a rest over Easter, and if he comes back refreshed after the recess he will discover what we intend to do.

DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF ADVOCATES

Mr. Pollock: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when next he will meet the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no plans at present to meet the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.

Mr. Pollock: If my hon. and learned Friend were to make plans for such a meeting, will he confirm the Government's determination to keep the Queen's justice available to all subjects and at all times, irrespective of any sabre-rattling, militant Civil Service elements who are threatening disruptive actions in the courts?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. I am glad to see from the Financial Times and other reports today that the


unions concerned will not, apparently, persist in either the threat or the action. I believe that those who serve the cause of justice have a duty to that which is paramount and far above any other duty. I have said so in this House before and I say it again.

SHERIFF PRINCIPAL FOR PERTH

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when next he plans to meet the Sheriff Principal for Perth.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no plans at present to meet the Sheriff Principal of the Sheriffdom of Tayside, Central and Fife, in which Perth lies.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. When he next meets the sheriff principal, will he consider discussing the need for a suitable uniform or apparel to be worn by sheriffs in Scotland, thus enhancing their status and, more important, the administration of the law in Scotland?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes. I have already discussed that question with the sheriff principal and with the sheriff of Perth. It is important that Scots sheriffs who—for an historical reason that has now disappeared—have not worn a uniform should have robes appropriate to the dignity of their office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is essentially the "couturier" of the sheriff. When he finds sufficient funds he will, no doubt, make such dignity available.

Mr. Speaker: We are one minute late in beginning questions to the Solicitor-General. I shall allow for that minute.

SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION

Mr. Canavan: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Scottish Law Commission.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Neither I nor my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Advocate at present have any plans to meet the Scottish Law Commission, but meetings are held when and as necessary.

Mr. Canavan: As we have been waiting almost a decade for the Commission's report on the law of diligence, including warrant sales, will the Solicitor-

General tell the Law Commission to stop dragging its feet? Will he also tell his Government to stop instructing one of their stooges from the Whips' Office to come here Friday after Friday in order to block my Private Member's Bill to abolish warrant sales?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If it has taken as worthy, as wise and as diligent a Commission as this one 10 years to look into the law of diligence in Scotland, it is unlikely that a failed mad monk can do it on a Friday afternoon.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (DELEGATIONS)

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I was unable to give notice of this point of order. It has arisen as a result of our inability to conclude agreements in other ways. On 3 April 1979 the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) raised a point of order about the procedure used to nominate the British parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe and to the North Atlantic Assembly. In rather graphic words he said that Front Bench Members had acted illegally for the past 28 years by using the device of a written parliamentary question in order to appear to have conveyed the will of the House to those Assemblies on the composition of any British delegation. He made that point in some detail. He said that article 25 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, quoted in full in our manual of procedure, provides that:
the Consultative Assembly is to consist of representatives of member states elected by the several national Parliaments or appointed in such manner as those Parliaments direct.
In every case, with the exception of this Parliament, the confirmation of that fact is given by the Speaker's signature, or that of an equivalent person, on the names and credentials of the delegates concerned. That does not apply to the delegation from this country. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will confirm my next point in a later ruling. However, I do not think that you have ever been asked to sign the credentials of the delegates.
I suspect that a written parliamentary question will be tabled, if the precedent of the past 28 years is anything to go by,


and that an answer will be given to that question with a speed that is normally denied to Back Bench Members. I suspect that a question will be tabled tonight and that an answer will appear tomorrow. I also suggest that that answer will not reflect any agreement between hon. Members of different parties about the composition of that delegation.
The rights of Back-Bench Members in particular are very much affected by this matter. In any other matter, where the composition of a body is at stake, it appears on the Order Paper in a form to which Members can object and to which they can submit amendments. In that way hon. Members can attempt to secure that the will of the House is given effect to. At times, Back-Bench Members will find that their will is defeated in the end by the size of the Government's majority. However, at least procedures exist by which their will can be expressed. As you, Mr. Speaker, protect our rights, you can ensure that they have been protected.
It appears that an attempt will be made to reduce the size of the Opposition's delegation in the Council of Europe by means of a written parliamentary question. When it appears it will be too late to do anything about it. As a result, the credentials of the delegation can be challenged in the respective assemblies. The attempt to have your name as a signatory on the list of speakers, Mr. Speaker, was an attempt to get round that difficulty.
Unless the bodies to which such delegations are sent are sure that the delegation has the full authority of the British Parliament, at the first meeting—whether of the Council of Europe or of the Western European Union—questions can be raised about the credentials of the delegation. The whole delegation—no doubt sent at the taxpayers' expense—can be sent back home. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give the issue further consideration.
When the issue was raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury you said that you felt that it could be resolved by agreement between the Whips. However, no progress has been made over the past year and no satisfactory alternative has been proposed. It is therefore time for you to give further consideration to this

question and, perhaps, to rule on it tomorrow. Perhaps you will also indicate to those Front-Bench Members concerned, particularly the Government Front Bench. that it would be wrong to try to slip in a parliamentary answer before you have given that ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the clarity with which he submitted his point of order. I will look into the matter and make a statement tomorrow. I am sure that the hon. Member's latter remarks will have been observed by members of the Government. The interests of the House are involved. I am sure that that will be borne in mind.

BILLS PRESENTED

GAS

Mr. Secretary Howell, supported by Mr. Secretary Joseph, Mr. Secretary Nott, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Hamish Gray, Mr. Norman Lamont and Mr. John Moore, presented a Bill to provide that the supply of gas to any premises at an annual rate in excess of 25,000 therms shall be subject to the special agreement of the British Gas Corporation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 3 April and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)

Mr. Neville Trotter, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mrs. Sheila Faith, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. W. E. Garrett, Mr. Ron Lewis, and Mr. David Watkins, presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 in relation to grant of special hours certificates and the extension of existing on-licences to additional types of liquor: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 April and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this House do meet tomorrow at half-past Nine o'clock, that no Questions be taken after half-past Ten o'clock, and that at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question provided that this House, shall not adjourn until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER AND MAY DAY)

Motion made and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising tomorrow do adjourn till Monday 14 April and at its rising on Friday 2 May to adjourn till Tuesday 6 May.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendments on the Order Paper in connection with the Adjournment motion.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I rarely detain the House on the Adjournment motion, as I believe that unless one raises a matter of extreme importance it is a bit of a charade when a very tired House pleads not to have its recess. Hon. Members would perhaps be shocked if the Government conceded the motion and we did not have our Easter Recess.
However, the difficulty of travelling at night is of extreme concern to my constituents and the country at large. All last weekend it was impossible to travel on the Underground into my constituency, because the stations were closed as a result of the serious attacks that have taken place over the past six months on the line that goes through Neasden and serves my constituents.
The problem is serious, especially if it continues. I support the railwaymen in my constituency, who have said that enough is enough. They are being injured. The last train driver who was attacked may well lose the sight of one eye. It is wrong that my NUR members, who have served the country and my constituency so well year in and year out, should be liable, on Friday and Saturday nights, to find themselves in the situation that occurred at Neasden, when a sledgehammer smashed every window in the train. The entire travelling public was at risk.
I do not criticise the police force in my area. By and large, it does a good job. I wish to bring to the attention of the House the need for decisions much higher up.
Under this Government especially there is a shortage of cash, and there is generally a shortage of personnel. It is incredible that when 100 members of the National Front are likely to go on a march, 3,000 policemen are used to protect them, yet when people travel through

my constituency, having visited relatives, friends, the theatre or the cinema on Saturday night, they risk not completing their journey without being seriously harmed and ending up at the Central Middlesex hospital.
When one is dealing with two or three different Departments it is surprising how often papers go backwards and forwards between the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office and other Departments concerned. We should have a speedy resolution of this problem, and I am anxious that the House should discuss the matter and have a statement from the Home Secretary on the progress of negotiations. I raise the matter on this occasion as it is urgent. Over the Easter weekend my constituents are unlikely to be able to travel on Friday, Saturday or Sunday, because of such action.
When the national newspapers reported the terrible incident at Neasden, they said that they hoped that the London Underground service would not become like the service in New York—a no-go area after dark—which worried me intensely. We should not wait until the problem develops so that all that people can do to avoid danger after dark is to stay indoors and watch television. Action should be taken now.
There are many Bills in Committee. I believe that two Standing Committees finished yesterday. There is much business to be completed this Session. There is not much likelihood of finding time to debate the matter, other than on a brief Adjournment, before July. The Leader of the House is probably growing more grey hairs through worry about the parliamentary timetable than any previous Leader of the House for many years. There is a backlog of material to be dealt with before the end of the Session.
I again apologise to the House, because I rarely use the Adjournment motion to raise a matter of this kind. However, it is the only opportunity that I can see to bring the problem to the attention of the Government and the country at large. It is time that action was taken. Negotiations should be expedited.
I pay tribute to such people as Bob Kettle, the leader of the metropolitan NUR in my area, who has done much over the past two years to try to solve the problem for his men.
I ask the Leader of the House to take the problem seriously and to try to find time for the Home Secretary to make a statement immediately after the recess.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to raise briefly two or three important matters.
I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). My research assistant was gravely inconvenienced last weekend by not being able to use the Underground. Security on the Underground must be fully investigated. The concern expressed by those who work on it deserves serious consideration by the Government.
I wish to raise a matter relating to my constituency that has received attention in the national press. It relates to a long-established Act of Parliament—the Local Government Superannuation Act 1922, under which it is possible for long serving local government officers to retire and receive their superannuation pension, yet be taken on again 24 hours later in the job from which they have just retired.
In the Congleton borough council two senior and well-respected local government officers, by a council resolution last year, retired for 24 hours and were taken back again. For two, three or four years they are likely to be in receipt not only of their superannuation pension, which is 50 per cent. of their last year's salary, but their full salary, which will continue to increase. In the eyes of many hard-pressed ratepayers that gives those officers a salary increase of about 50 per cent.
I believe that the Act affords officers or other employees in local government service the opportunity of opting for a pension and then being taken back on again only if they have worked in local government for more than 40 years. I am pleased to learn from the chief executive of the Congleton borough council, Mr. Arthur Molyneaux, that there are no other officers in the employ of the borough council who can use the system, as the two officers have, by the resolution of the council, been held to have abused the system.
When the Government are appealing to the country for cuts in public expenditure it is important that such an abuse of the system should not be allowed to con-

tinue. I ask the Leader of the House whether there are other councils in which senior officers or senior council employees have retired, have started to draw their superannuation pension, and have been taken back again on full salary. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell me that that abuse is limited.
I believe that it is quite legal for those officers to do that, but it is immoral, wrong and undesirable. It sets a bad precedent for the rest of the country and for the manual workers in NUPE and NALGO within local government.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman look at Hansard for today? I asked a similar question with regard to the top-paid civil servants, who do the same thing, only better. They get a full indexed pension and take a job as chairman of a bank at £20,000 or £30,000 a year. Their combined pension and salary is then greater than the salary of the person who succeeds them, yet the Government refuse to stop that practice.

Mr. Winterton: I am not necessarily opposed to that practice. If a person leaves his job and finds another job outside his previous activity, it is a different matter. I have cited an example of two persons retiring from a job for 24 hours, drawing their superannuation, and then being re-employed in the same job.
It is right that the House should appreciate that the officers concerned sacrifice a small increase in their superannuation pension when they finally retire. Their pension would be based on their final year's salary, that is the salary for 1979–80, rather than on the final year of their employment, which will cease when they are 65.
I am not levelling criticism at the two officers concerned, with whom I have an extremely good and close working relationship. They are well-respected officers of the borough council. I level the criticism that the arrangement is an abuse of the system. It is as much of an abuse as the abuse of the social security system, of which Conservative Members—and I hope many Labour Members—are highly critical.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am not condoning the position, but I must ask my hon. Friend whether


he realises that, under the normal redundancy schemes that apply to workers throughout the country, there have been many cases in which redundancy payment has been taken and the workers concerned have then been re-employed in the same firm.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend appears to have misunderstood my criticism, which is that the two officers are voluntarily opting for retirement to draw their superannuation pension early. That is wrong. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to quote some statistics to indicate that the abuse of the system is very limited. If some form of parliamentary legislation is required to close the loophole—it might be more widespread than we believe—I hope that the Government will take the necessary action.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The hon. Gentleman may have carried the majority of hon. Members with his persuasive argument. However, does he not agree that in the case of senior civil servants who opt for a similar arrangement there could be a serious breach of confidentiality? They are abusing their position of high trust, and, as a result, are being made attractive offers that can carry them comfortably into their retirement.

Mr. Winterton: If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. Gentleman has made that point before. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will be allowed to develop that argument. I do not wish to go down that path this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman has reminded me of one point. The local government officers to whom I referred have contributed to their pensions. It is not a noncontributory scheme. It is only fair to present both sides of the case. However, an abuse has been committed and that is an unfortunate example. The Government should provide statistics to indicate that it is not a widespread abuse.
I wish to refer briefly to the lobby of the House that took place last week by physiotherapists, radiographers and speech therapists, following the anomalous and unjust recommendation of the Clegg Commission. The findings relating to these important paramedical groups within the Health Service show how unfortunate it was to appoint a commission

under Professor Clegg to do the work that it has done in recent times.
In short, the Clegg Commission has recommended that these vital groups—who are highly skilled and need to undertake considerable training—are expected either to work much longer hours to qualify for an increase, or, if they continue on their present hours, to take a reduction in salary. That is utterly wrong.
The well-disciplined and impressive demonstration and march that took place last week will have had considerable impact upon the House. I believe that it has had considerable impact upon my hon. Friend the Minister for Health.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Last year the lion. Gentleman asked for a police escort for a demonstration by Health Service workers. I supported both that demonstration and the one that took place last week.

Mr. Winterton: We are used to dealing with the hon. Gentleman in many of his guises, not least in the House. I hope that he is prepared, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stand up and support the case that I am advancing on behalf of the valuable groups who operate within our Health Service. They bring tremendous benefits to so many people who need to use the Health Service.
May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to say what action the Government are taking? I understand that these groups feel so aggrieved that they may be forced to take some form of industrial action while the House is in recess. It would be unfortunate if they were to do so. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health is aware that an anomaly and an injustice has been done. May I have some form of assurance from my right hon. Friend that the Government are using their very best endeavours to ensure that industrial action does not take place, and that the injustice that is being suffered by these important people will be rectified quickly?
Perhaps I am speaking somewhat light-heartedly—I hope that I speak for all hon. Members—when I say that the lobby that we saw last week is one that all male hon. Members are delighted to receive. The lobby was extremely well


disciplined. The groups produced their case in a concise manner. They left no one in any doubt that they had a good case. They were not seeking in any way to rock the economic boat in Britain.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the Clegg Commission, I must ask him whether he appreciates an important point. If there is a comparability commission—the whole concept was a nonsense dreamed up by the Opposition Party—and it says that comparability requires an increase in working hours or a corresponding reduction in wages, surely either the concept of comparability with its consequences must be accepted, or the whole idea should be scrapped.

Mr. Winterton: I am rather inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that the Clegg Commission should be disbanded immediately and that no further reference should be made to Professor Clegg. The recommendations of his commission have been damaging in many areas. I have given an example of how inadequate investigation into what is involved with a vital group within the Health Service has led to an undesirable recommendation.
If my hon. Friend wants more evidence, let us deal with middle management within the Health Service. Middle managements in hospitals in my constituency have written to me pointing out that a sister on night duty in a geriatric or psychiatric unit earns £8,252 maximum annual salary. That is far more than a senior nursing officer, two grades senior to that sister, can ever earn under the present salary system. The sister earns £1,568 more than the senior nursing officer's maximum basic salary. Even if the senior nursing officer works in a geriatric or psychiatric unit on night duty, with more than 1,000 patients to look after, the most that she can earn would be £7,649. That is £603 less than is received by the sister to whom I referred. Many anomalies and injustices have resulted from the Clegg recommendations.
Another matter that is of continuing concern is the position of the textile industry.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is well aware that I have

pestered him—I use that word purposely —during business questions for week after week. I have been asking my Government—a Conservative Government—to find time to debate the continuing problems of a vital and a strategic industry.
The hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) may receive representations from the various trade unions that work within the textile industry. I receive representations from employers and the professional and commmercial associations that represent the industry—for example, the British Textile Employers Association, the British Textile Confederation and the British Clothing Industry's Council for Europe Limited. I also receive representations from the trade unions. The British Clothing Industry's Council for Europe Limited is a body of considerable importance, which operates within Europe and looks beyond the shores of the United Kingdom.
The industry's position is grave. It is true to say that it has probably been in no more serious a state for 40 years. The Government owe something to the industry, the employers, the many people who have placed considerable investment in the industry over the years, and the skilled and responsible work force. They owe it to the industry to take action to bring about fair competition.
I shall quote from the annual report of Berisfords, which is a large company in my constituency. It is the biggest single employer in Congleton, the town and the borough in which I live. Under "Future prospects" the chairman stated:
We are worried by the continued increase in imports of clothing from the Far East and the low-cost Mediterranean countries under the terms of the multi-fibre arrangement made with the EEC. Successive Governments do little to save textiles from this erosion of the British clothing industry. As manufacturers of accessories like ribbon, trimmings and labels, we suffer because clothing is imported complete with such items.
Later, the chairman said:
The closure of Courtaulds, the United Kingdom's last viscose yarn-producing factory, which has been one of our traditional sources of supply for raw materials, constitutes a serious problem for us and we shall now have to import yarn at higher prices and maintain larger stock holdings.
Again, the hon. Member for Keighley and I are as one. The textile industry is


being driven into a corner. We are eroding Britain's manufacturing base. We are forcing those higher up the textile-producing cycle to purchase commodities from abroad which they would like to purchase in Britain. If we allow that situation to continue, the textile industry, which is the third largest employer in Britain, will be driven to the wall. If that happens, not tens of thousands but 200,000 or 300,000 employees over the next five years will find themselves out of work. That will be unacceptable.
I must press my right hon. Friend to produce some answers. I hope that he will be closely in touch with the Department of Trade during the next couple of hours. What is the point of having a multi-fibre arrangement if we grant not only new quotas but increase existing quotas? Under category 8, the original quota for Romania was 665,000. Why has a revised quota of 765,000 been granted by the EEC? Romania is a Comecon country. Surely at this time we owe nothing to Comecon countries or to the Soviet Union. Under category 7, Hungary's original quota was 42,000. It has been increased to 62,000. Why was that increase granted? Under category 8, Hungary's original quota was 153,000. Why was it increased to 183,000? I could continue giving examples. The list is almost without end. The situation is serious. The mills that have closed this year total almost one a week.
Whatever party is in power in Whitehall has a responsibility to an important industry. It is an industry that has always modernised and rationalised in accordance with Government guidance. It has a history of industrial relations that is second to none in any industry in Britain.
If my right hon. Friend cannot obtain answers from the Department of Trade, and if he cannot obtain an assurance from the Department that action will be taken to prevent Britain losing its industrial base, I hope that he will say that early after the Easter Recess he will find time for the House to debate the problems facing the textile industry.
I am sick and tired of having to reply every day to letters from sensible, good employers and from those who work within the industry in my constituency and elsewhere. They write to me as they

know that I am involved as chairman of the all-party group on cotton and allied textiles. They put great pressure on me and my limited secretarial staff. They ask what the Government intend to do and when they will take action. I am not prepared to tolerate the textile industry being sold down the river. My right hon. Friend is always courteous to me, and I hope that I can be courteous to him. I hope that he will be forthcoming with some answers to the questions that I have raised.
I do not seek to ensure that the House sits through Easter. We all have families, and we do not wish that. However, these short debates enable us to raise matters of considerable importance to us, as individual Members, and to our constituents, which is even more important. I beg my right hon. Friend to respond positively to my remarks.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am in a somewhat equivocal position in seeking to address the House on this motion, as I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure which recommended that it should no longer be the opportunity for precisely the type of debate in which I am seeking to intervene. However, the House having in its wisdom decided that we should continue to have the opportunity, I should feel uneasy in going on Easter Recess, albeit in my constituency, if I were aware, as I am, that considerable numbers of my constituents and others in the Province were not receiving, owing to administrative failure benefits to which they were entitled.
I shall state briefly to the Leader of the House and to the House the circumstances to which I refer. At the beginning of January I became aware that a family in my constituency that was entitled to FIS had not been receiving it since the expiry of its book on 7 January. Apparently, the family had made proper application for a renewal before the middle of December.
I naturally wrote to the Minister of State, assuming there had been some administrative mishap—perhaps a loss in the post—and that the matter could easily be put right. I was astonished to receive from the Minister of State in the middle of February a reply to the effect that the


facts were as I had alleged but that payment had not been resumed until the beginning of February. I did not find that in itself to be a sufficient explanation. Therefore, I pursued my inquiry with the Minister, who in the middle of March replied that
the Prescribed Amounts for Family Income Supplement were increased from 13 November 1979. This resulted in an influx of claims which became more pronounced when the Government introduced a further measure to offset heating costs for Low Income Families and the Prescribed Amounts were further increased. The significant increase in the number of claims made caused a backlog in the Branch.
The Minister gave me an assurance that every effort was being made to clear and to process the claims as quickly as possible; but it was only at that stage that he offered any expression of regret that my constituents had been deprived for over three weeks of income to which they were fully entitled. Nevertheless, I still assumed that there could be only a few cases to which that applied; but thinking it a matter which ought to be established, I tabled a question to ascertain the nature and condition of the backlog. On 26 March I was astonished—I think the House will be astonished—to learn in reply that on 18 March the total number of claims outstanding was still 1,037. Thus, after an increase in amounts that had taken place in the middle of November, there were over 1,000 families who were not receiving their addition four months later; and in some cases they were not receiving any of the payment to which they were entitled, let alone the additional amount. In 472 cases—nearly half—requests had been made for additional information before a decision could be given.
The Minister of State—who I am glad to see on the Treasury Bench, and whom I thank for his courtesy in attending to hear these points—further said that it was
not possible to state at this stage when the backlog of claims will be cleared, but extra staff have recently been trained and the situation is being kept under review.
Any hon. Member who went down for the recess without bringing to public attention a failure of administration of this character—apparantly so lightly taken —which results in people entitled to benefits not receiving them over many weeks, would be open to censure. There are

priorities within departmental administration. In some circumstances, time has to elapse before a backlog can be removed. But surely this was a type of case where emergency measures and the drafting of additional staff from less urgent work should take place. It should not be possible that at the end of March 1,000 families are still not receiving the benefits to which they became entitled long before. I hope that when on the advice of the Minister of State, the Leader of the House replies to the debate, he will be able to tell me and the House that emergency measures are being taken, and that what constitutes a scandal on a considerable scale will be brought to an end.

Mr. Michael Latham: I wish to raise three matters, in respect of two of which I gave notice to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on Monday. The first concerns a subject which, to my mind, should have been debated already because the regulations to which I shall refer took effect yesterday—the Building (Prescribed Fees) Regulations 1980, statutory instrument No. 286. They introduced for the first time fees for the submission of building regulations, on which many hon. Members have received representations. A prayer has been tabled against them by a Member of the Liberal Party.
I wrote to my right hon. Friend about the matter a couple of weeks ago suggesting that it was of sufficient importance to be debated. The powers to introduce those fees were included in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act introduced by the Labour Government in 1974. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) was responsible for the Act, and I am pleased to see that he is present in the Chamber.
There is no political question about whether the fees should be introduced. The question is whether they are being introduced in the right way. It would have been of considerable advantage to the House if we had been able to debate the matter, as a number of hon. Members would have been able to give reasons why they felt that the fees were not being introduced in the right way. There is no attempt to make a reduction for repetitive work, such as house building. As the House knows, I am a house builder. I favour fees in principle, but the method


by which they have been introduced is incorrect.
I am concerned to receive reports from the House-Builders' Federation and others that local authorities are taking on more staff for the purpose of collecting the fees. The Federation has produced a list of local authorities—which it submitted to the Secretary of State for the Environment —which indicates that they are likely to take on more staff for the purpose. I regard that as unsatisfactory. The matter should be debated in the House.
There has been no indication that, in performing their duties and collecting a fee for them, local authorities will perform their duties in a speedy and efficient manner. There should have been adequate debate on that. Hon. Members from all parties are receiving representations on these matters. It is regrettable that they were not debated before the regulations took effect yesterday.
The second matter which I wish to raise—which I also drew to the attention of my right hon. Friend in advance—arises out of a constituency case, which I hope has been sorted out by private negotiations. However, the principle remains. It concerns passports for people who have ceased to be citizens of the United Kingdom through no fault of their own. One of my constituents, a Mr. A—I have given my right hon. Friend's office his correct name—has been living in Britain since 1938, having been born in a Caribbean country. He had a British passport, which recently came up for renewal. When he tried to renew it, he was told that he could no longer have a British passport because the country in which he had been born became independent in 1973, and that a passport should be issued by that country.
Having lived in Britain since 1938, having served in our Army for five years, and having subsequently worked for the Government in various capacities, he was not pleased about that. Nevertheless, he accepted the advice and went to the high commission of the country concerned. He was told that it would take a considerable amount of time for him to obtain a passport. He will not have any travel documents before May, when he is due to go abroad on a family holiday. That problem has, I hope, been sorted out through negotiations with the Home

Office. However, I trust that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that the Government will shortly make a statement on its review of the law of nationality, because difficulties of that sort arise quite frequently, and it is not the first such case that I have experienced.
My third point is also a constituency matter. It relates to the urgent need for the Government to make a decision on a planning appeal—an appeal by British Gypsum Ltd., to mine gypsum at Barrow-on-Soar. This has been subject to an unusual procedure. On 25 February the Department of the Environment issued a semi-decision letter in which it said that the inspector had heard the appeal but that he felt that it should be dismissed —the plasterboard plant should not be built, and the gypsum should be carried away by rail. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that he was not prepared to decide upon the matter until people had been able to comment on the rail proposal, and he gave 28 days for comments to be received.
That is an unusual procedure, but not necessarily objectionable. Comments have now been received, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that the Government will make an early decision on the matter. It is wrong tht the objectors and the applicants should be left in doubt when the inspector's report has been published and the Minister has left the decision in the air.
Those are three matters, two of which are of constituency importance, on which I hope my right hon. Friend will comment.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The House should not adjourn for Easter without considering matters that arise from the publication this morning of the latest defence White Paper, and in particular the proposal to deploy 160 cruise missiles on British soil.
It has been said that we all live a telephone call away from disaster. That can apply to us personally, in that, for example, someone whom we love may be in a road accident, but it can also apply to the whole of humanity. By design, or more likely by accident, a nuclear bomb could be dropped on Moscow or Leningrad tonight. I do not think that the Russians would wait to set up the


Russian equivalent of a Royal Commission. They would wipe out the possible sources of the bomb. As Aneurin Bevan once said, there is no label on a nuclear bomb.
We are a priority target, and we shall become far more of a priority target if we go ahead with the proposal. We are extremely vulnerable in our overcrowded island.
The White Paper says that the Government warmly endorse the proposal. It is easy for them. They will be safe underground, about five levels down. But I do not think that the rest of the population would warmly endorse the inevitable retaliation.
The position is not hopeless. We have three years to negotiate before the weapons are deployed on our territory. Mr. Brezhnev has offered to reduce the number of his nuclear missiles if we do not install these weapons. Today's newspapers report that four out of 10 tests of the weapon, production of which has been given to Boeing, have been failures, and it has gone astray. I do not fancy that happening on our territory.
People say "Ah, but look at civil defence." It is odd that there is not a word about civil defence in the White Paper. I am not very worried about that, because I think that it is futile. There is no civil defence against nuclear weapons. The only defence is to try to stop their being used. If nuclear bombs land on our country—and it would need only a dozen—

Mr. Pavitt: Four.

Mr. Allaun: I shall be generous, and say that a dozen megaton bombs would make life unliveable in this country.
I hope that if nuclear bombs fall my wife, my children and I will be underneath the first bomb, because we should die immediately. If we were 50 miles or 100 miles away, we should still die, but days later and in agony, because the atmosphere would be radioactive and the water, the soil and the food would all be poisoned by radioactivity.
Part of the revised proposal, for civil defence, which does not appear in the White Paper, is a question of morale building. A good deal of brain-washing is going on. If one can involve people

in some kind of activity, in the belief that they are defending themselves, one is in a way indoctrinating them, preparing them for a third world war. There are hon. Members who are not prepared to play that game.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The Government are also kidding people along.

Mr. Allaun: That is right. I repeat that there is no defence against nuclear weapons except to prevent war breaking out.
There is another and more terrible weapon, Chevaline, the updated Polaris missile system, on which £1 billion has been spent by both Governments, after deceiving the House and the people. A number of us asked questions and we were not told that Chevaline was the updating of the Polaris missile system.
Another terrible weapon is the Trident missile. The cost is £5 billion for five submarines and the missiles to go with them. The money spent on one of those submarines—£1 billion—would build homes for 74,000 families and I know which those families would prefer.
I do not know whether others have noticed it, but I find it noteworthy that in the White Paper, which consists of two beautifully illustrated volumes, the word "detente" does not appear. Perhaps relaxation of tension is now an out-of-date idea. Although the word does not appear, there are misleading illustrations, beautiful illustrations in colour. There is no need to buy The Sunday Times Magazine.
The illustrations are misleading in two ways. First, in comparing the military strength of the two sides they omit China. China on the eastern flanks of Russia is no joke. Secondly, there is no mention of Polaris in dealing with medium-range missiles.
The White Paper says that the Government are demanding an improvement in the military machine. I think that the country needs an improvement in the nonmilitary machine, which the Government are dismantling day by day. There is a huge increase in arms spending, to nearly £11 billion, and further increases are to come in the years ahead. At the same time, the Government are smashing our housing. I believe that in three years no more council houses will be built and nothing more will be spent on improvement. Total housing expenditure is


planned to be cut by £2½ billion compared with last year and by £3½ billion compared with what a Labour Government would have done.
Whatever Labour Party leaders say in the House, the party is opposed to nearly every measure for increased expenditure on arms and the expansion of the arms programme mentioned in the White Paper. It is particularly opposed to the acceleration of the arms race, and most particularly to the deployment of 160 cruise missiles. Unless we prevent it, they will be deployed on British soil and probably lead to the deaths of all of us.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I wish briefly to raise two points. First, before adjourning for Easter we should have an opportunity to discuss the inequities and iniquities of the rating system. In the next few days people will receive their rate demands. In some parts of the country the increase that ratepayers will have to bear can be described only as horrendous. The overall rate increase imposed by my own local authority of Trafford is 19 per cent. That is high enough, but it was kept down to that amount only after the most stringent economies.
Some people believe that high spending is compatible with low rates. The authority has recently come in for a good deal of criticism because of the economies that it has made. I received a letter from an irate constituent who complained bitterly about the economies, but underneath her signature she wrote that she was a teacher and a parent and that her rates were excessively high. I wrote back saying that I should be grateful if she could explain how we could have high expenditure and at the same time have low rates. Unfortunately, she did not have an answer.
Whatever the cause of high rate bills, we must try to find a fairer system of collecting local government finance. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have constantly raised the problem of the person who lives alone, who has a small fixed income and who is paying exactly the same in rates as a family living next door, in an identical house and perhaps with four wage-earners.
In the general election campaign of October 1974 the Conservative Party

promised to reform the rating system. In the election campaign last May rating reform took a back seat in the party manifesto. We were told that it had to have a lower priority because after four and a half years of Socialism the burden of personal taxation had risen tremendously and, therefore, the lowering of direct taxation had to be the top priority. But I hope that the Government have not forgotten the need to do something about a system that is so patently unfair.
What is even worse is the system of assessing water rates. Last summer the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) introduced a Ten-Minute Bill to try to deal with the problem, which concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. At least with domestic rates the poor can apply for a rates rebate. That is of some help to them. But no such system operates for water rates. Like domestic rates, water rates are unfair. Whereas domestic rates take no account of a person's ability to pay, water rates take no account of the water used or the amount of sewage that must be disposed of from each house. Water rates are assessed on the rateable value of a property. Again, a person living alone will pay the same amount in water rates as a family with four or five in the house next door.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The situation is even worse than the hon. Gentleman has described. A hereditament does not need to have a water supply to be charged a water rate.

Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman may make that point in his speech, but I do not disagree with him. I should like the whole system to be looked at, because we must find something fairer. I am sure that he agrees that the system is unfair, because it takes no account of a person's ability to pay or of the amount of water consumed. For example, a family with four or five children will undoubtedly use a great deal of water, but the amount that family pays can be exactly the same as the amount paid by a single person living in the house next door. I see no equity at all in that system.
If domestic rates have jumped substantially in recent years, they are as nothing compared with the increases in water rates. I have just had the demand for


the water rate for the small flat in which I live in London. My water rate will amount to £70 a year. A bill for £70 a year could be a disaster for families on low incomes or for the elderly living alone.
I cannot see why rebates are allowed on domestic rate bills but nothing is allowed for water rates. It is essential that the Government pay urgent attention to this vexed question. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give an undertaking that the Government will deal with this problem in an effort to achieve a fairer system.
The second point concerns the way in which certain oil companies are dominating and taking over the retailing of petrol in this country. As the oil companies take over more of the petrol sales, so we shall see the disappearance of more small garage businesses. By the end of 1977, more than half of Britain's petrol was sold by company-owned sites. In the last two years, I understand that the percentage has increased.
The point that I particularly want to make concerns the tactics being employed by Esso, because it is seeking to replace many of its tenants' leases with licences —a move which will deprive those tenants of their legal rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act and give Esso control over pump prices. This has caused great bitterness amongst Esso tenants.
It is a worrying situation. In 1979, 1,815 filling stations closed down. Of these, the majority—1,349—were independently owned filling stations often providing other services.
So worried were the Esso dealers that on 18 March they had a protest meeting in London. From all accounts, it was a bitter meeting with retailers complaining of the way in which they had been treated by Esso. Many of these tenants have been kept waiting for months after the expiry of their leases without knowing whether the leases would be renewed, whether they would be forced to accept licences in place of their tenancies or whether they would be in business at all. Apparently, more than 13 per cent. have been kept in the dark about their future since their leases expired in 1978 or earlier.
But there are also serious consequences for the consumer. If the major oil companies are allowed to control the retail price of petrol, it will result in the closure of the smaller independent businesses. We must remember that the most important difference between a leased site and a licensed and directly managed site is the ability of the petrol company concerned to fix retail prices. The general view is that about 26 per cent. of petrol sold in the United Kingdom today is at prices dictated by the petrol companies, or, put in another way, one in every four gallons.
Shell has approximately 1,450 licensed sites. Esso is anxious to increase its number. If it manages to do that, it will be only a question of time before BP and National follow suit, and that could result in one in every two gallons of petrol in the United Kingdom being sold at prices firmly controlled by the supplying company.
That is at total variance with the report of the Monopolies Commission in 1965. That report declared:
The power and resources of the petrol companies are such that, if left entirely free to pursue their own chosen policies, they will be likely to gain an increasing degree of control over the retail trade.
The report went on:
The practice on the part of petrol suppliers of acquiring retail petrol premises may be expected to operate against the public interest unless some limit is imposed.
The limit proposed was 15 per cent. The undertakings given by the oil companies 15 years ago not to take more than 15 per cent. of the market were abandoned in 1968, and the percentage is getting greater each month. If it continues to increase at the same rate, it will mean the end of many small businesses. As the Government believe in trying to create conditions for greater and fairer competition as well as the encouragement and protection of small businesses, which give employment to many people, I think that they must listen to what the people from these small businesses are saying at this time.
I was alerted to this problem by a constituent of mine who operates the Altrincham service station. A few years ago his lease was due to expire and Esso decided that it wanted to redevelop the site. It wanted to turn the garage into a self-service station. It submitted plans


to Trafford council. Those plans were turned down and Esso, as was its right, appealed to the Minister. On appeal, Esso was represented by members of the legal profession. My constituent, who was fighting for his livelihood, decided that he must also employ legal advice. The appeal was rejected, so my constituent could breathe again; but he was faced with legal costs which amounted to £5,000.
That in itself would be bad enough, but Esso has now made modifications to its original plan and is again applying to Trafford council for planning permission. If Trafford council should decide to reject that application, Esso could again appeal to the Minister. No doubt Esso would again employ lawyers to represent it and again my constituent, fighting to protect his livelihood, would also require legal representation. As I said, on the last occasion it cost him £5,000, and he had to pay that money out of his own pocket. If he has to go through this process again, I believe that he could be broken financially and Esso would have defeated him by what I can only describe as dubious tactics.
It is unfair that the law as it stands means that people, such as my constituent, can be put to such enormous expense and have no power to claim one penny back from the organisation which lodged the appeal and was unsuccessful.
I find it very strange that Esso can do in this country what it would be prevented from doing in the United States of America. At the moment it seems to be price fixing at the pumps, refusing to renew tenancies, taking over successful independent sites and arbitrarily ending contracts to supply petrol to filling stations which, in Esso's opinion, do not sell in large enough volume.
I believe that this whole business demands urgent investigation by the Government to try to ensure that there is no further enforced reduction in the number of independent filling stations in this country. At the same time, the planning laws should be looked at so that small businesses cannot be driven into bankruptcy by repeatedly having to spend large sums of money in successfully warding off planning appeals.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he replies, will be able to give me some

message that the Government will look closely at this situation with a view to ensuring that small businesses will be allowed to prosper and trade fairly.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I have no wish to detain the House for any great length of time or to deny parliamentarians the approaching recess. But I am surprised and concerned that so far we have not had a ministerial statement from the Secretary of State for Industry about the location of the NEB-Inmos production unit at Bristol.
This important point was highlighted in a letter to The Times by three of my right hon. Friends on 29 February last. They were my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley)— the former Secretary of State for Industry —for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). In their letter they suggested that NEB-Inmos was guilty of a breach of faith in suggesting that its production unit should be located alongside the technology centre at Bristol.
For the House to appreciate the significance of the letter it is necessary for me to recall the establishment of NEB-Inmos itself. It was set up with £50 million of public money. The handful of computer technologists who were attracted to return from the United States to establish a microprocessor industry were given a financial stake in that business. Additionally, when their view that they preferred to establish their technology centre at Bristol was made known, that was agreed to.
Former Labour Ministers claim, however—and this was indicated in the letter to The Times—that in return for those undertakings NEB-Inmos was to locate the production units—there will be four providing a total of 4,000 jobs— in the assisted areas. There has been no statement from the Secretary of State for Industry in reaction to the proposal to locate the unit in Bristol. He has a locus in the matter because he is now considering the payment of a further tranche of £25 million to NEB-Inmos. If the production unit is to go to Bristol, he will have to authorise an industrial development certificate.
In considering these two suggestions from the organisation, the right hon. Gentleman should re-endorse the approach


of Labour Ministers and seek the undertaking which those Ministers sought and were given. The right hon. Gentleman should be getting a commitment from NEB-Inmos that the production units will be located in the assisted areas.
The North-West has an unanswerable case in this respect, and I say that not from any sense of mere parochialism. The last Government located the National Computer Centre in Manchester and the North-West because Manchester university is where the first computer was invented, and Manchester university, UMIST, and Salford university produce 12,500 graduates every year with a facility in computer technology. Before Inmos went to Bristol, the university there did not even have a chair in microelectronics.
I advance the claims not only of the North-West but of Wales, Scotland and the North-East. These are the areas which in recent years have lost tremendous numbers of manufacturing jobs. In the North-West the textile industry has been decimated, and there has been the contraction in coal mining, engineering and steel. If we are not to be considered for the new mobile industries upon which the future of Britain will depend—and I wish NEB-Inmos the greatest of success in establishing a microprocessor industry—the outlook is very bleak.
I have sufficient confidence in the Leader of the House that he will convey our concern on this matter to the Secretary of State for Industry. I hope that he will convey one other thought to his right hon. Friend—the hope that any Government statement on this crucially important issue will not be shuffled out by way of a written answer. We do not want an announcement of that significance to be dealt with in that manner.

Mr. John Stokes: I do not think that we should adjourn for Easter until we have debated the influence which the BBC has on public opinion. We debated fairly recently the question of an additional television channel, but that debate touched only the periphery of this subject. Every hon. Member will agree that the BBC is the most powerful medium of news and propaganda in the country. It still enjoys immense prestige and reaches almost every

household. It probably has far greater influence even than Parliament.
I was for many years an admirer of the BBC. In many ways I still am. I greatly respected Lord Reith, its first director-general, and I admired the tone and the high standard that he set from the earliest days. During the last war the BBC distinguished itself by the respect in which it was held, not only in this country but in enemy-occupied Europe and throughout the world.
Since the war there has been an enormous growth of television. In some senses it now dwarfs sound broadcasting. On the whole I prefer the latter. It is more responsible and has higher standards. Certainly the radio news bulletins are first-class, giving factual statements of the news which in my view are clearer and more succinct than those to be found, for instance, in the popular newspapers. The BBC television news falls short of its sound broadcast counterpart. The temptation for television is to concentrate on those items which will show up well through the camera. That is one of the grave faults of all television.
The broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament is improving slowly. I was an outright opponent of the scheme, but having heard the transmissions from the other place I have to admit that their Lordships come across extremely well—so much better than we do. In broadcasting the proceedings in this Chamber, there is still too much emphasis on rows, scenes, angry confrontation and sensationalism which have little or nothing to do with the issues of significance here.
The BBC has much to be proud of. Its coverage of State events is magnificent. Its reporting of sporting items is, rightly, highly regarded. Above all, it still recognises the place of religion in this country, following in the traditions set by Lord Reith. However, I regret that the BBC falls down seriously in two other vital aspects—in morality and in the impartiality of its views. That is why I believe we should debate the subject before we adjourn.
The lapse in morality and taste started in the day of Sir Hugh Greene, the director-general who was proud to personify the permissive society, a phrase that fortunately is seldom heard today. It was under his leadership that the BBC began a whole series of reviews, sketches, skits


and plays which fell far below its earlier high standards of morality.
The BBC might have plumbed even lower depths had it not been for the valiant efforts of one woman—and I refer to Mrs. Whitehouse, whom I greatly admire and who is greatly admired throughout the country. She at least partly stopped this moral rot.
Most hon. Members will agree that the inclination of the BBC is still far too much towards sex and violence in much of what it shows, inflicting, I fear, appalling damage on the moral fibre of the nation, particularly our young people. In some of the variety shows, the smutty jokes, the innuendoes and the sheer crudity and vulgarity jar in many households. We must never forget that, unlike the cinema, where entry can to some extent be regulated by age, BBC programmes can enter any sitting room. If no adult is present, the set may not be turned off.
At the same time as there has been a fall in moral standards, there has been an attack, I regret to say, by some BBC producers on the integrity, cohesion and patriotism of the nation. In the myriad of talks, commentaries, discussion groups, surveys and all the paraphernalia of the modern news media in dissecting and debating absolutely everything, whether or not a suitable subject, I find, to my distress, that there often creeps in bias that is inimical to the best interests of the nation.
The producers themselves may not even realise this. Being men of ideas with little practical experience of life, they are naturally bound to be more criticial than constructive. We may have found this here from some of those who, at one time, followed that profession. These producers seem to have a very free rein from their controllers. Some of them, I suspect, are the sort of people who, in private life, read The Guardian newspaper and who mistakenly believe that those are the views of the ordinary Englishman, not realising, of course, that the ordinary Englishman never reads The Guardian. Some of them have never even heard of it.
In spite of all the brainwashing by the BBC, the ordinary Englishman still loves his country and its institutions and reveres its heritage. Often, in BBC discussion programmes, it is painful to see how the point of view of the ordinary

man in the street is belittled or ignored and various so-called trendy or progressive views are purveyed as if they were opinions generally widely held.
More serious Is the bias and the occasional appalling blunder of which there have been several examples recently —for instance, the interview with the IRA, giving it a status and publicity it dearly seeks. Can one imagine any foreign broadcasting organisation committing such a crime against the security of the State? More recently, there was a scandalous programme about the Army called "Gone for a Soldier" which gave great and universal offence. Even after showing those programmes, the BBC was actually considering selling this damaging indictment of our Army to foreign organisations before public opinion forced it to shelve the plan. This attack on the Army was particularly inappropriate at the time of its outstanding success in Rhodesia—a success, I venture to suggest, that no other army could equal.
These are highly disturbing matters. They cause great resentment, not amusement, as I know from representations by my constituents and from more general protests. If the BBC, the State institution, cannot stand by its own country and people, who, after all, pay for it and wish to look up to it, where can people look to in public affairs? Surely this is "treason by the clerks" writ large. That is why I believe we should debate this matter before we rise for Easter.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stour-bridge (Mr. Stokes) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks. It is interesting that Conservative Members frequently berate the British Broadcasting Corporation—I have, from time to time, criticised it myself—but rarely devote any time or energy to criticising newspapers such as The Sun when they would not allow that newspaper to enter their homes. I would not like it to enter my home. I have no intention of allowing it to do so. It seems to me that if Conservative Members are concerned about morality and responsibility they should devote more attention to the cheaper newspapers.

Mr. Stokes: I have frequently criticised The Sun and other newspapers for their photographs. I do so now.

Mr. Hardy: I am delighted to hear that. I only hope that more Conservative Members will emulate the hon. Gentleman's attitude towards such newspapers. There is a noticeable quiescence among Conservative Members about the appalling way in which Britain is served by the cheaper newspapers, both during the week and on Sundays.
My purpose in speaking, I hope briefly, is to suggest, for the first time in the 10 years I have been a Member, that the House should not rise until it has examined some urgent and serious problems. I shall reduce the number of items to which I refer, although the list is very long. I am concerned, for example, about the rate of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside, especially the impending enormous increase in the unemployed in the building and civil engineering industry. The needs and the lengthening dole queues in Yorkshire and Humberside show an insanity in our society. The air, the water and the environment of the area could be improved.
The quality of the local rivers—the open sewers of the Don, the Dearne and the Rother—recalls to my mind the hopes of a few years ago that those rivers would be upgraded in their classification by the mid-1980s. It is no wonder that my constituents are angry about the water rates now coming through their letterboxes. Although the people of South Yorkshire are prepared to contribute from their pockets to secure the improved cleanliness of the rivers, it is not acceptable that they should now be paying more while the rivers remain dirty for a great deal longer. The water rates, to some extent, are a consequence of the Water Act 1973, about which I have spoken in the House before. It was a muddled piece of legislation.
I was delighted when the previous Labour Government prepared a Bill to put right the inadequacies of the 1973 Act. Among those inadequacies—one that is felt sorely in at least 235 homes in my constituency—are the problems of people whose homes are not connected to the main sewers. This is the fourth time I have mentioned this issue in a debate in the House. As I said in 1979, there was a prospect of the Labour Government getting a Bill through the House to put the matter right, but there has been no

sign whatever that the present Government will put right the appalling injustice to the 1 million or more people in Britain who depend on services not connected to main sewers. It is not fair for a Government to pretend to be the guardian of rural England when those affected, who are largely the dwellers of rural England, face increasing disadvantage.
Water rates are increasing. People are getting less of a bargain. I do not deplore or condemn those who serve on the water authorities. The root of the problem is the inadequacy of the Government's economic policy.
Just as water rates are rising, so are local government rates rising enormously. It is a far cry from the time, two or three years ago, when the Conservative Party was pledging to abolish the domestic rate. No doubt it will return to that demand in the autumn of 1982 as the election approaches.
Local government is placed in appalling difficulty. In my area the Government would like the borough council savagely to cut education and social services. The council is seeking to stand fast, but during the next year or two the pressure to reduce expenditure will grow. It may be that if pressure is maintained and the rate support grant shrinks in value the local authority will be hard put to it to maintain services.
In my constituency, as in many others, the number of elderly people is rising rapidly. Far from reducing social services expenditure by 6¾ per cent. as the Government wish, we should be increasing it in order to match the need.
Rotherham borough council has a first-class record in the provision of social services for the elderly. If the Government had their way, the facilities which we offer would be pruned drastically and problems would ensue. Unless the council increases provision over the next two years, services for the elderly will be in danger.
That is bad enough, but at the same time my area health authority is plunged into serious difficulties. It has not enough money to meet local needs. I have tried recently to secure an opportunity to raise this question in the House, and I am


glad to have that chance to do so before Easter.
Rotherham area health authority is proposing to close Rosehill hospital, at Rawmarsh, and the Listerdale maternity hospital, at Wickersley. These hospitals will remain empty while need is severe. It is ridiculous that hospitals will be empty when the need is reaching appalling levels.
For many years until recently, psychiatric patients from my constituency were automatically sent to Middlewood hospital, in Sheffield. We are now told that such patients can no longer be sent to Sheffield. If there was adequate provision in Rotherham, that would be desirable perhaps, but we do not have that capacity.
I became involved in a case not long ago in which a very old and senile lady offered violence to the baby granddaughter of the family with whom she lived. She had to be rushed immediately to Middlewood. From now on we shall not be able to send such cases to Middle-wood. I do not know whether we have the facilities to cater for such a case in Rotherham, and that worries me. If the area health authority is expected to meet local needs, it should have extra finance. When the Government deny that area health authority even the money needed to keep up with the increase in VAT, imposed last year by the Government, we are in a serious situation.
Another matter of immense local importance in my constituency—and I believe of national importance—is the future of British Steel Corporation (Chemicals) Ltd. I believe that yesterday it was intended that the two large coking plants which form the bulk of the coking capacity of BSC (Chemicals) were to be transfered to the Yorkshire and Humberside division of the British Steel Corporation. Whether that occurred I do not know. Perhaps I should know as the Member of Parliament concerned.
However, I was relieved to hear that the coking capacity currently owned by BSC (Chemicals) would be transferred to another division of the BSC and not hived off. Unfortunately, however, I believe that it is the intention of the BSC and its masters in the Department of Industry that the chemicals content of BSC (Chemicals) is to be disposed of, or at

least that a majority interest is to be sold.
I am anxious about that for a number of reasons. I considered the matter carefully over the weekend and I discovered that BSC (Chemicals) Ltd. is a highly successful enterprise. Even in the face of the serious and avoidable steel strike —.it would have been avoided had the Government not embarked upon a lunatic course—BSC (Chemicals) will be profitable in the current financial year as it has been profitable for a good many years.
The company is a developing organisation. It has invested in various parts of the country and in one or two outlets abroad to develop its electro-coating process. The firm would be a profitable source of investment and I understand that it needs capital of about £8 million or £9 million for current development.
However, the BSC main board, partly because of the interfering attitude of the Department of Industry, is unable to provide that capital. It seems likely that the main board has suggested to BSC Chemicals that it disposes of a majority interest —for perhaps a grossly inadequate sum —in order to develop capacity at Port Clarence and to develop overseas outlets for the electro-coating process.
Many hundreds of my constituents are employed by the BSC yet they do not know, and I do not know, what the position is. As a representative of those constituents, and of the taxpayers of Britain who are possibly being denied the opportunity to benefit from future and perhaps imminent profitability, I think I should have detailed information about the present position.
It is regrettable that the BSC in London —I do not complain about the Sheffield headquarters or at this stage about the Chesterfield headquarters of BSC (Chemicals) Ltd.—has not informed those employed in the industry, or hon. Members who represent them, of deals which are, perhaps, currently being negotiated. People should have adequate information about their future, and their parliamentary representatives should be informed about deals which are now clearly being done behind closed doors. I hope that those doors will soon be open.
Parliament is entitled to a short holiday. If the Government were taking a holiday as well, we would probably be overjoyed at the prospect of a break. However, we are going away but the Government


will continue to govern. Tribute has been paid to Mrs. Whitehouse. I find some things to criticise in her utterances, but if we are to go away and leave the Government in charge I would rather Mrs. Whitehouse were at No. 10 Downing Street over Easter than the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister.

Sir Ronald Bell: I wish to refer on this motion to an institution in my constituency which serves a national function. But before turning to that I would like to say how much I agreed with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stour-bridge (Mr. Stokes). Anyone who speaks as he did about what needs to be done about the BBC exposes himself to the charge of naivety in the eyes of some. This is a serious national problem. We either have confidence in ourselves as a community and a nation or we face a doubtful future.
The problem which the BBC faces—I have always recognised this—is not bias among top management. I differ with my hon. Friend on this. The BBC has a problem of recruitment which it does not know how to solve. The difficulty underlying the complaints of my hon. Friend is that those who are, shall we say, on the Right in politics or in the middle, or who are not politically minded when they come down from the universities, go into useful and productive occupations. On the other hand, those primarily concerned with Left-wing politics make a straight line for the media.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: And the law.

Sir R. Bell: Not the law. They go into newspapers and broadcasting. I often criticise the results of that. I believe that such people think that they are being impartial, but they do not know where the middle of the road is.

Mr. Cryer: They are not the only ones.

Sir R. Bell: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is wrong. I never imagined that I was in the middle of the road. On the contrary, I have always said that the middle of the road position is defined by those who are on the far Left or the far Right. One discovers the middle by adding the two together and dividing. Those of us who do not seek

to be in the middle of the road have a greater influence than those who like to be there.
I turn to a local consideration—the Farnham Park rehabilitation centre in my constituency, which is threatened with closure. It is threatened for a reason which explains why I raise it in this forum. It is being closed because it serves a national need and not a local need. The local health authority, seeking economies, naturally turns to an institution which serves a national need.
The centre rehabilitates seriously damaged people. Its main function is to restore working capacity to individuals who are disabled by whatsoever cause. The criteria for admission are that the patient should be unable to work and that he should have been previously, but unsuccessfully, treated at a district general hospital. We are discussing a centre of second referral. When a district general hospital has had a go at a patient and has failed, that patient is sent to the Farnham centre. Such a patient might have suffered a stroke, an athletic injury, disseminated sclerosis or another disabling disease.
The centre is so successful that in recent weeks hon. Members from all parts of the country and in all parts of the House have written to me after receiving representations from their constituents. I have been asked to do what I can to ensure that the centre continues its work.
When health authorities scrutinise their budgets, they naturally consider what is most useful for the area. The East Berkshire district management team has concluded that the services provided at Farnham Park rehabilitation centre are of only marginal benefit to the district. A total of 70 per cent. of patients come from outside the region, so an even higher proportion comes from outside the district. I have no doubt that the health authority has examined the cost and said "Goodness, the vast majority of patients come from other parts of the country, so this is a jolly good candidate for economy."
It might be said that the issues could be raised in an Adjournment debate, but such an idea is preposterous since so many hon. Members would wish to take part in the debate. On the other hand, the subject is hardly suitable for a five-hour debate on a balloted motion. The


decision is apparently to be made by the district or area health authority and yet the centre is important nationally. How can one deal with it except by having a debate in the House? How otherwise can one exercise influence? It is not for me to suggest how the problem might be solved, but perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services should make a special allocation of funds for the centre, which is financed by a local health authority but fulfils a national function as an institution of second referral for totally disabled patients.
The centre has an extraordinary record of restoring patients to health and normal activity. I have a large pile of letters which have been sent to me in the last few months since the threat arose. The letters come mainly from outside my constituency. They are from patients who have profited and returned to active work as a result of the special skills at the centre.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will deal with the matter. I hope that he will bear it in mind when I raise the issue as a possible subject for debate. I hope that he will draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the problem of the rehabilitation centre.

Mr. Alan Williams: I wish to speak of one issue alone. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), I wish to explore the mystery of the missing statement. Two weeks ago my right hon. Friend and I, during the Consolidated Fund debate, raised yet again the question of the £25 million and the fight for Inmos. We were told that a decision was imminent. We expected a decision to be taken within days because it had already been considered by a ministerial Committee.
On the day before we go into Recess, nothing has been said to the House. A motion on the Order Paper has attracted nearly 100 signatures, such is the anxiety of hon. Members in various parts of the country. In the Chamber now are right hon. and hon. Friends representing Scottish, Yorkshire, Welsh, North-West and Northern constituencies. They all represent areas which have a direct interest in the Government's decision.
We must bear in mind that at this stage in our economic affairs a production unit providing 1,000 jobs is attractive to and necessary for many parts of the country. I emphasise the peculiar nature of the development of the decision. When I was a Minister at the Department of Industry, the original assurance was given to me by the National Enterprise Board that if an industrial development certificate was given to Inmos to allow it to go to Bristol all the production units would go to assisted areas. That would result in 4,000 jobs.
A PA Management Consultants report was commissioned to analyse potential sites. Local authorities in various parts of the country, at considerable cost, made submissions to the consultants, explaining the sites that were available and the advantages of their localities. The report is surrounded in mystery. When I asked a National Enterprise Board spokesman whether the report recommended that the production unit should also go to Bristol, despite the promise from the NEB, he said that he could not remember what was in the report and that he did not have a copy of it. I was also told that the board would not want to put a copy of the report in the Library because it would be confusing to hon. Members. I am sure that it would be confusing if the report did not endorse the site for which Inmos is now pressing at Bristol. That is why we expect a statement from the Minister before the House goes into recess.
What has happened in the last two weeks that has prevented us from obtaining the information? There is considerable interest on the Government Back Benches about whether the£25 million should be given. I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are united in saying that we think that the money should be given to Inmos. But it is right that Government Members who take a different view should at least have an opportunity to question the Minister when he announces his decision. Whether or not the Minister decides that the production unit should go to Bristol, there are hon. Members who represent Bristol constituencies and assisted areas who will want to probe further the reasons for the site that has been chosen.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My right hon. Friend is


making a point that is extremely important to my constituency and to the North-West. What he has said about the siting of the production unit seems to imply that there may have been some breach of faith. I read my right hon. Friend's letter in The Times on 29 February. What was said then was very disturbing to localities such as my own, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us more about the intentions of Ministers in the previous Government.

Mr. Williams: I shall be as helpful as I can, but I must be careful because there are other hon. Members who want to speak.
When the application was made, I immediately said that I opposed it because in my view it was almost inevitable that Inmos would follow up with an application to site the production unit nearby. At that stage I was given an absolute assurance by the then deputy chairman of the National Enterprise Board, repeated by him at a further meeting and repeated by the chairman at a final meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), the then Secretary of State for Industry. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was also present. We were given assurances that it was not necessary for the production unit to be near the actual research and development unit.
I went into lengthy discussion with the deputy chairman about a Manchester site. I pointed out that in assisted areas, such as Manchester and the North-West, there was already a strong computer link and a good international airport. The same applies to Scotland, Wales and the North of England, where there is considerable infrastructure in terms of university back-up, labour availability and so on. All this was discussed, and it was on that basis that the PA report was to be commissioned, to find out which would be the most suitable site in the assisted areas.
We shall not be satisfied with a furtive written answer, slipped out at the last minute tomorrow afternoon when there will be no press and few hon. Members available to interrogate the Minister. If the Secretary of State for Industry does that, it will be seen as cowardly in the House and in the areas that have a direct interest in the siting of this project.
Therefore, I emphasise to the Leader of the House that we expect a full statement. If we are not to have a statement this side of the recess, we expect an assurance from him that there will be no furtive, underhand announcement tomorrow or during the recess. We want an assurance that an announcement will be made when the House is back, when the Minister can be fully interrogated.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea. West (Mr. Williams) in his request for a full statement on the Inmos project and an opportunity to discuss it. I, among others, have considerable scepticism about the wisdom of this proposed investment. I would not share the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for finding this project dumped down anywhere near my constituency back-yard, because I have a nasty suspicion that it will probably end in tears. However, I certainly believe that it is investment which the House should have an opportunity to discuss; so to that extent I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
I also agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), that this debate has tended to be occasion for hypocrisy. We all rise, one after another, and announce all sorts of reasons why the House should not adjourn, but we know in our heart of hearts that we would be absolutely horrified if my right hon. Friend turned round and said "I am so impressed by all the arguments that have been advanced that I have decided that we should abandon the Easter Recess." So we should be a little careful about the way in which we approach the matters in hand.
Having said that, I want to throw into the pool three little items of varying importance upon which I feel we could benefit from some elucidation before the House rises for this brief break. The first item is the report which emerged from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission yesterday evening on the Post Office monopoly. It may be recalled that this is a matter which has been before the Secretary of State for Industry for nine months. We now have from the commission a report which seems to be a remarkably half-baked document. The report finds, as if we did not know, that there is a


Post Office monopoly of the mails. It also finds, as if we did not know, that that is a monopoly which works against the public interest. For reasons which, I confess, entirely escape my understanding, the commission also finds that, perhaps on balance, it would be better to do nothing about this monopoly.
The commission points out that it is about the fourth body that has examined the Post Office in the past four or five years and that all of them have found rapidly deteriorating services and rapidly escalating costs, together with mountainous public dissatisfaction. All these bodies have told the Post Office that it must mend its ways or else, and the Post Office has responded with a solemn pledge that mend its ways it would; yet each of these bodies has been equally ineffective in achieving any visible improvement.
Against that background, it is urgent that we should have from my right hon. Friend—before we rise for the Easter Recess if humanly possible, but certainly immediately after our return—a response to the report and, for preference, a response which shows the courage of the conclusions of the commission and determines that the time has come to rescind the legal monopoly in which the Post Office basks. Although the commission's report relates to the services supplied—if that is the right word, but reading the report I do not believe that it is; perhaps the words should be "supposedly supplied"—by the Post Office to its customers in inner London, its conclusions clearly apply with equal force to the rest of the country.
The only argument which the commission seems to be able to sustain in favour of the retention of what it admits to be an abusive monopoly is that if the monopoly was withdrawn those in rural areas, whom the commission was not considering, would suffer from a diminution of public service not compensated for by access to cheaper, if less reliable, services. Since the whole drift of the report is that competition, if it were allowed, would possibly be more expensive though more reliable, that is an even more profoundly mystifying conclusion than many other aspects of the report.
What we need now as a matter of some urgency is a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, in the light of this report

and in the light of the departmental investigation which he has conducted for more than nine months, about the desirability of continuing with a Post Office monopoly. I remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that when the Secretary of State for Industry announced the departmental inquiry, he promised to announce the conclusion thereof early in the new year. Three months have now elapsed, and we are about to go into the Easter Recess. Therefore, this is becoming a matter of urgency.
That is my first point. I can raise the second point very briefly. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave an undertaking at the beginning of the year that there would be an early debate on British Leyland's corporate plan. I must admit that when I heard him give that undertaking it did not occur to me that we would be rising for the Easter Recess without having had a debate. I must point out that £300 million of taxpayers' money is involved and that Sir Michael Edwardes informed the Secretary of State back in December that that corporate plan would have to be reconsidered completely de novo in the event of a shortfall in the corporation's cash flow. I suggest that there are reasons for questioning whether that event has not already occurred.
At any rate, from reading my right hon. Friend's answer to me in January, it would be difficult to have drawn the conclusion that we would be rising for the Easter Recess without ever having had that debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend can now assure us that he will give time for such a debate at an early moment after our return. Members of Parliament are answerable to their constituents for the enormous sums that are being put into that business. We need some opportunity to scrutinise whether that is a proper utilisation of public funds.
My third point is also of direct concern to my right hon. Friend. I refer to the report published yesterday by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which commented on the manner in which the Spring Supplementary Estimates are handled. As my right hon. Friend knows, I raised this matter only a few days ago on the Floor of the House, when we were invited to pass £850 million of Spring Supplementary Estimates on the nod.
The Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service has basically come up with two recommendations, one of which we could all endorse. That is the appeal to my right hon. Friend to establish the new Procedure Committee as soon as may be, so that we can have a fresh look at the quite inadequate way in which Parliament at present scrutinises these enormous additions to public expenditure as they are supposedly put before us.
The second recommendation seems to raise rather greater problems, but again it is obviously a matter at which the Procedure Committee should look. Apparently, the Select Committee recommends that the Supplementary Estimates should be scrutinised by the relevant Departmental Select Committees. The trouble about that is that if one takes the latest Spring Supplementary Estimates, there were two serious defaulters with regard to breaching cash limits. One was the Scottish Office and the other was the Ministry of Defence. I put it to the House that one must ask whether the Select Committee on defence or the Select Committee on Scottish affairs represents the best substitute for proper scrutiny by the House of Commons as a whole of the way in which a Department has burst its stays and breached the cash limits which were set for it.
We must remember that to some extent Select Committees must inevitably be regarded as something in the nature of captive balloons of the Departments to which they are attached. That has always been the criticism which can be made about the system. At any rate, it would be desirable for the Procedure Committee, when it is set up, to look rather carefully at this aspect of the proposals that have now come from the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service.
Perhaps the point of greatest relevance this evening is that we need the Procedure Committee. I must confess to my right hon. Friend that I was a little disappointed—I hope that this is not being ungenerous—by the terms of the reply which he made to our brief debate on the business motion the other day, when the subject of the Spring Supplementary Estimates was raised. I hasten to add that I was disappointed only with that

part of his reply which referred to the establishment of the Procedure Committee. I would hate to suggest that my right hon. Friend was implying that this was a matter for the wild blue yonder, but on the other hand, from reading or listening to that part of his reply, I do not think one could get the impression that this was the highest item on his list of priorities. I believe that this is a matter of urgency. Again, if we cannot see progress before the Easter Recess—and I agree that time is short—I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to offer the prospect of movement very early after our return.

Mr. David Winnick: I believe that our discussions today have shown value of a debate on the motion which has been put forward by the Leader of the House. It would clearly be wrong to take that motion on the nod. This debate provides an opportunity for hon. Members to put various matters to the House which they consider to be important. While it is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said, that we do not believe that the end result will be that the House will not adjourn for the Easter Recess, nevertheless it is right and proper to have this opportunity of debating various topics.
The topic that I wish to raise is important. It concerns Britain's reputation. I refer to the possibility of the Government allowing arms to be sold to the Chilean authorities. The House knows that when the Labour Government came into office in 1974 they rightly decided that arms should not be sold to the Chilean junta, for the most understandable political reasons. A story appeared in The Guardian last Saturday which seemed to indicate that it is the intention of the present Government to reverse that policy. I hope that there will be some announcement before we go into recess about what the Government intend to do.
I also understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), who is the Shadow foreign affairs spokesman has written to the Foreign Secretary expressing his strong concern at the possibility that arms will be sold to the Chilean authorities.
In the last few weeks, much has been said in the House about represssion in the Soviet Union. As I understand it, Conservative Members, and, indeed, the Government, argue that it is not simply the Russian aggression in Afghanistan which should prevent sportsmen from participating in the Olympics but the lack of freedom inside the Soviet Union itself. Conservative Members have often taken the opportunity to tell the House how dreadful things are in Russia and in Eastern Europe generally.
I am one of those Socialists who does not deny for a moment that there is a complete absence of civil liberties in the Soviet Union. I think that is the view of most, if not all, of my right hon. and hon. Friends. But it would be utter hypocrisy if Conservative Members or the Government lectured us about the situation in the Soviet Union and yet were quite willing and enthusiastic to sell arms to the Chilean authorities.
The position in Chile has not changed a great deal since the coup in 1973. Then, of course, a democratically elected Government were destroyed by violence, and a group of people—army officers and the rest—took power in their place and pursued a policy of murder, torture and brutality. One of the people who was tortured was a British citizen, Dr Sheila Cassidy. As a result of the treatment that she received at the hands of the Chilean authorities, the United Kingdom ambassador was withdrawn. I believe that it was highly deplorable that we should have sent an ambassador back to Chile. Once again, it seems that a Tory Government show a willingness, to put it no higher, to collaborate with a Fascist regime.
There is an important difference between saying that we do not like the regime, but that is no reason why we should not have diplomatic relations, and saying that we should supply arms to the Chilean junta. I can see no possible justification for a policy of selling arms to people who still carry on a policy of murder and torture.
I argue that Britain's reputation will be tarnished if we decide to reverse our policy and sell arms to the sort of people who now rule in Chile. If there is a feeling that I am exaggerating, I turn from The Guardian to a quotation from The Times. I remind the House that when

the coup took place in Chile The Times decided to justify it two days after the event, just as the Tory Government justified it. However, on 18 January this year The Times said:
The regime is in fact resisting all attempts to account for the hundreds of people who have been tortured and killed since the military came to power. It has also retained the apparatus of oppression which enables it to hold down organized opposition, and still includes torture as a way of extracting information.
That is a quotation from The Times—hardly the voice of radical thought in the United Kingdom.
I hope that we shall get a statement before the House rises for the Easter Recess. It worries me that perhaps while we are away the Government's policy will be changed and we shall not have an opportunity to challenge it. That would be a most unfortunate way of carrying out such a reversal of policy.
I urge the Government to be consistent. They say that they do not like the lack of freedom in Eastern Europe. They say they are concerned about the lack of civil liberties. I agree that things are deplorable in Eastern Europe, but what consistency can there be if a Tory Government argue on those lines and yet are quite willing to allow arms to be sent to a repressive and brutal regime which continues to hold power in Latin America? I hope that this country will be consistent, and that the Government will pursue the same policy as the Labour Party pursued when it was in office.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I believe that the House should not adjourn until it has had the opportunity to discuss a matter of major importance, namely, the lengthening period of delay between committal for trial and the holding of the trial in criminal cases. This is an injustice which has been present for a long time in our system and which has increased considerably in the last few years.
To their credit, the previous Conservative Government managed to bring down the average period for those awaiting trial by the provision of a number of extra courts. In 1974 defendants on bail had a waiting time which averaged 11·2 weeks. Defendants in custody waited for an average of 7·1 weeks. Those were the best figures that we had had for several years.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General supplied me with some helpful statistics on 24 March which show that the figures have increased progressively every year since 1974. By 1979, defendants on bail were awaiting trial for an average of 19 weeks and those in custody were waiting for an average of 11·1 weeks. In other words, on average, after a defendant has been committed for trial, if he has been remanded on bail he must wait almost five months for the trial, and if he is remanded in custody he must wait three months in prison for his trial.
These figures conceal a horrifying reality. Being averages, they do not take account of the large number of cases in which those on bail or in custody wait a considerable time before their cases are heard. In fact, in some cases now being heard in the criminal courts up and down the country the defendants have been in custody for more than 12 months. That is disgraceful, and unfortunately the figures are increasing all the time.
In all cases, a gross injustice is committed to the defendants. That is particularly so when they are subsequently acquitted of the offence, so that in the eyes of the law they have never committed it at all. In such cases they have either been incarcerated in custody for a long time or have been on bail under suspicion and with the threat of imprisonment hanging over them. That gives rise to tremendous misery and hardship.
I am not concerned only with the problems of defendants. I am also concerned with the quality of justice. After 12 months, witnesses simply cannot remember the detail of what they may have heard or seen on the occasion which forms the basis of the facts on which the allegations of crimes are made. Many times in periods of far less than 12 months witnesses have gone into the witness box and been unable to remember details of identity, time and distance—details which are very often vital for the prosecution or the defence; its cuts both ways. The result is gross injustice.
What is more, our laws of evidence, which were framed in a more gracious, spacious and leisurely age, do not assist in this respect. It is no help to a court that is trying to get at the truth when the facts concerned occurred several months before and when the laws of evidence

prevent the admission of evidence that might otherwise assist in getting at the truth. The result is not only injustice because of the quality of justice, and the misery and hardship caused to the defendants and their families, but overcrowding in our prisons, especially local prisons, and remand centres where people are remanded in custody to await trial.
One notices that on the Order Paper no fewer than 112 Members have signed early-day motion No. 536 which calls attention to this great problem within our prison system. Therefore, this is regarded as an important and difficult problem which must be tackled within the context of our penal system. However, I believe that it is in respect of the quality of justice that the matter needs urgent attention. One accepts that the Government are doing their best, but unfortunately this is not a subject which is often raised in the House or which often receives the most urgent attention from the Government. That is why this is the right time to raise it.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: An added problem is that remand prisons are overcrowded. Unconvicted prisoners are now being moved to other prisons as category A prisoners. They are being refused the right to wear civilian clothes while in those prisons. They are being treated as convicted prisoners.

Mr. Stanbrook: I completely accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Speaking as a London Member, he knows of the hardships and miseries that are inflicted upon those in Brixton. That prison is overcrowded, and occasionally incidents have occurred. Overcrowding is a great strain on prisoners and on prison warders and staff, and that bodes ill for all concerned. The problem must be tackled urgently.
One recalls that the last Conservative Government were able to help by the provision of courts. They accelerated the building programme. Courts were built rapidly and provided great relief for an over-pressed system, and one must look forward to more courts being built. However, as a result of public expenditure constraints we may have to find fresh courts within existing buildings. I am sure that that can be done. We should make greater use of our court buildings.
Perhaps we shall be told that it is a question not only of buildings but of staff. I suggest that we should adopt unorthodox methods for organising trials. For example, we could stagger court hours. Perhaps two courts could sit in the same premises on one day. One court could start at 8.30 am and finish at 2 pm, and another could start at 2.30 pm and finish at 8 pm, using a separate staff. The personnel rota would be organised accordingly. Something like that must be tried because the problem is desperately urgent. We may well see a horrifying explosion if we take no action. Justice may suffer from such delay. Justice delayed is justice denied. I hope that the Government will bring their proposals before the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My speech will be truncated because I have given notice to the three relevant Departments. My first point concerns the Department of Health and Social Security. It concerns the cost of kidney dialysis. Mrs. Elizabeth Ward, who has done sterling work for kidney patients, spoke on the radio this morning. She raised the point—as she did at a press conference yesterday—that the British Kidney Patients' Association can have a four-unit dialysis set-up for £42,000.
The average price for a similar unit for area health boards in Scotland and England is £150,000. That arises partly because they will not accept the Portakabin method. I checked with Mrs. Ward this morning, and that is known to the Department. Quite rightly, she is unwilling to make a personal issue of it and she will not name the authorities about which she is complaining. However, as there are lengthening lists of kidney patients, the Department should ask how the British Kidney Patients' Association can apparently do a job three times more cheaply than area hospital boards. I spoke to the Secretary of State on this point. I gather that his Department will comment.
The second issue concerns the Board of Trade. Again, I have given notice of my question. A very serious issue has arisen as a result of the dual pricing system carried out in the United States. It is operated by the American Government for energy supplies and for chemical feedstock. Areas such as mine and the con-

stituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) are greatly threatened because whole sectors of the European chemical industry will be at risk by 1984–85 unless urgent decisions are taken in relation to iso proponol, acrilonitrate, styrene and vinyl acetate.
Notice has been given to the office of the Leader of the House and to the Department of Trade. They know the precise nature of the problem. In the various international discussions that will take place before Parliament reassembles, I hope that the Secretary of State for Trade will make some argument for a common tariff on behalf of EEC countries.
The third issue of which I gave notice concerns my constituents, particularly those on North Sea oil rigs, who are involved at Hound Point and many other terminals. One of my constituents was among the lucky ones to be saved from the recent rig disaster. I ask the Leader of the House, in his capacity as Government business manager, to change the business of the House so that instead of discussing the Criminal Justice (Scotland) [Lords] Bill on April 14 we could discuss the Burgoyne report, "Offshore Safety."
Like many of my hon. Friends, I am very concerned about the minority report that comes from two trade union members, Mr. Miller and Mr. Lyons. They say, in paragraph 24, page 62:
Meanwhile in the UK sector the position is really quite scandalous. In spite of UKOOA understandings with the Inter-Union Offshore Oil Committee (IUOOC) over trade union rights to access and recognition offshore, a battery of devices are used to minimise the trade union presence amongst permanent platform employees involved in production. To date there is only one collective bargaining agreement offshore, covering gas platform staff in the southern sector, and that was only secured after several years of resistance. Elsewhere pressure, intimidation, temporary bribes, and other means are used to hold back the development of bona fide trade union organisation and recognition".
Having said that, they think that the Norwegian set-up is slightly better. They conclude:
We firmly believe that the alternative advice we have given in our report is vital to the aim of achieving the maximum possible reduction in deaths, injuries and dangerous occurrences offshore. So many of the other recommendations of the Committee, which we fully endorse, would, in our view, be overshadowed by the weaknesses of the Report that we have identified. We particularly desire to avoid a


well-meant exercise in reviewing offshore health and safety standards being turned into the vehicle for an ill-considered attempt to exclude the HSE and the development of realistic, responsible tripartite consultation, from the North Sea".
For many decades the mining industry has accepted that those who are responsible for safety should not be connected with the sponsoring Department. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) will have some sympathy with my argument concerning the discussion of criminal justice on Monday 14 April. We should turn our minds quickly towards offshore safety.
Among the various rig workers in my constituency with whom I have talked, I cannot detect any great panic. Of course, it is natural that their wives and families are worried. That is understandable. The sooner that we get down to detailed consideration of the Burgoyne report, the better.
I have two further points, the first of a domestic House of Commons nature. The summer is once again on us. Will the Leader of the House look at the Strangers Gallery at Question Time? We all know how difficult it is to run around like the proverbial fly, trying to get tickets for our constituents. At 3.5 pm during Scottish questions, a whole sector of the Gallery was empty. I had the curiosity to go outside, and I counted over 50 people sitting in the area leading from St. Stephen's entrance, and doubtless there was a further queue outside.
We should turn our minds to a proper system of allocating tickets. The fault lies not with the Serjeant at Arms and his Department but with ourselves under this system in which the House Committee insists that the tickets should be allocated. Colleagues who may be away on delegations or at the Council or Europe often put tickets into their pockets, which are not used, and those of us who may need tickets do not get the benefit of them.
Before the summer, could some consideration be given at least to a trial period to allow hon. Members to put in for tickets when they need them, without the allocation? None of us will apply for tickets unnecessarily, but any hon. Member who is unduly greedy will surely be sorted out by colleagues. A more rational system should prevail.
From a comparatively minor matter, may I turn to a major matter? It will be in the recollection of the House that last Friday we had a five-hour debate on the Brandt Commission report. With qualifications from the Government and with the exception of one Conservative Member, there was unanimous support in the House for its recommendations, which were far-reaching. They included a tax on international arms sales and dealt with the basic issue of the North-South relationship.
With due deference to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who raised the matter, it is of great importance that we have a two-day debate shortly after the recess on the whole issue of the Brandt report. Surely the Government are not satisfied with a Friday debate on such a major issue and will make time for proper House of Commons consideration of these vital issues.

Mr. Speaker: Before we continue, I have a brief statement to make. I hope to be in the Chair tomorrow morning from 9.30 onwards. It will therefore be necessary for private notice questions that hon. Members wish to table tomorrow to reach me by 9 am at the latest, otherwise I shall not be able to give them proper consideration before the House sits. Once I am in the Chair for Question Time, I cannot consider private notice questions.

Mr. A. P. Costain: On these occasions the Leader of the House is expected to answer for all omissions of Ministers, real and imaginary.
I wish to raise matters of which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is well aware. The Public Accounts Committee has published seven reports which we have not yet had the opportunity to debate. That is a record number of outstanding reports. It is particularly important that these reports should be debated. At a time of financial stringency, it is necessary to draw the Government's attention to the waste of money that often occurs when politicians start construction works long before plans are properly prepared. At a guess, over 70 per cent. of the excess expenditure to which the Public Accounts Committee has to draw attention results from that.
It is clearly demonstrated in the recent White Paper that due regard has not been given to the fact that plans should be prepared. The Treasury is so hidebound that it will not allow work to start on design work until funds are available for the entire construction. Over the years, with regard to schools, hospitals and town halls, it has not appreciated that the gestation period for a building is two to two and a half years. If we can debate the matter in the House, we may be able to get some sense into the Treasury to help Ministers in other Departments. I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on the need for a debate on the building aspect of planning permission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) mentioned the concern over rate, water rate and sewerage rate demands. In my constituency it is even worse. We have our ordinary rate demands and then we have demands from the Folkestone and Hythe water company. Having got over those two shocks, my constituents receive a further demand from the Southern water authority. They cannot understand why they should have to pay for water twice when they were once able to pay for it in their general rates.
I never delay the House for longer than necessary. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able to give us some satisfaction in his reply.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief, as I have only two points that I wish to raise.
My amendment to the motion indicates my concern that the Government should make a statement on the disposition and control of cruise missiles. It is clear from their evasive replies that the Government do not have control. They have not produced any statement to show that the key to cruise missiles is in their hands. It is in the hands of the Americans.
Secondly, I have received information, which I have not yet had confirmed, that these sites are already being prepared, which is of great concern to East Anglia. A large number of meetings have been organised against the cruise missiles.
I introduced a Ten-Minute Bill a few weeks ago, which was not opposed. The only interjection came from the hon. Member from Halesowen and Stour-bridge (Mr. Stokes) from a sedentary position. However, it appears that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), according to a report in The Guardian today, tried to intervene in the affairs of a district council seeking to hold a referendum on the missiles, when Forest Heath district council, through Brandon parish council, proposed to provide money for a referendum.
I prefer my Bill, and I hope that it will be given time. It would allow people within a radius of at least 30 miles of these sites, who may be devastated by planned or accidental retaliation, to vote on whether they accept them. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who did not oppose my Bill, is now trying to intervene with local authorities that wish to permit the exercise of democratic choice.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable local anger at the way in which, with no local knowledge or involvement, he has constantly sought to speak in this House for the people of East Anglia? Local Members of Parliament, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), are closely in touch with parish, district and county councils that may be affected by cruise missile sites. Questions are constantly put down. The moment that any statement is made about where the sites are likely to be placed, we shall represent our constituents. We do not need the help of the hon. Member on how to run our constituencies.

Mr. Cryer: This is not a constituency matter. In any interchange of missiles the whole of the country would be affected. If the hon. Gentleman does not realise that, he is a bigger fool than he has appeared so far. He had the opportunity to oppose my Ten-Minute Bill. Why did he not do so? Why did not any other Conservative Member oppose my Bill?

Mr. Gummer: The reason why I did not oppose it is that this is a sovereign House, in which we can discuss such matters. Referenda are not the answer to matters about which we are elected to


take decisions. When the Government bring forward their proposals for cruise missiles, we shall put forward the views of our constituents. We shall fight for them a great deal harder than the hon. Gentleman fights for his constituency.

Mr. Cryer: It appears that the hon. Gentleman will oppose the proposal to site missile bases in East Anglia. What he said confirms my point. He says that he is waiting for legislation and that referenda are not the right way in which to deal with his issue. I introduced a Ten-Minute Bill. The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to oppose it. He could have gone to Mr. Speaker's office as did the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who subsequently withdrew his opposition. Why did not the hon. Gentleman do that? Why did he not get to his feet when I presented my Bill, open his mouth, and divide the House? Did he not have the guts to do so? He could have done that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Parliament is an important institution. It is the most important assembly in Britain, and he is inside it. He had an opportunity, but he did not exercise it.

Mr. Gummer: I did not oppose the hon. Gentleman's Bill because I believed it to be part of his continuous party political operation. He does not know anything about East Anglia. That is why he has to draw from his top pocket the name of the district council to which he referred. He does not know where it is, he has never heard of it, and he has never made any previous reference to it. The hon. Gentleman should confine himself to his constituency and to matters that he knows about, instead of constantly raising matters relating to other constituencies which have nothing to do with him and which he can leave to the reasonable legislative processes of the House.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is quite extraordinary. I received a telephone message from a person whom I do not know in an area that is concerned with cruise missiles. The message was about the cancellation of the proposed referendum to be held in Brandon, apparently under the expenditure provisions of the Forest Heath district council. I do not wish to reiterate my previous remarks. However, I promoted a Bill and the hon. Gentleman kept his counsel and kept his

mouth shut. He did nothing. He had the opportunity to oppose the Bill, as did other hon. Members. However, he thought that discretion was the better part of valour.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: rose—

Mr. Cryer: I do not wish to give way too often. I am concerned that other hon. Members wish to speak. They are desperate to speak, as I was. I shall not give way on any further occasion.
I wish to emphasise one more point. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) said that the House is important, and he is absolutely right. Therefore, it was all the more disappointing that the Secretary of State for Defence took the decision to install cruise missiles in Britain. He is using East Anglia, or anywhere else in Britain—we do not yet know all the sites—as a parking area for American-owned missiles, without consulting the House. That is why special measures are necessary.
I have already spoken for seven minutes. I wish to complete my comments within the average of 10 minutes. I shall be as brief as possible. I should like the Leader of the House to comment on the circumstances in which the Government gave permission to a civil servant—Mr. J. D. Lippitt—to leave the Department of Industry and take up an appointment with GEC. There were no conditions placed upon his accepting the appointment as group director for exports at GEC.
I received a bizarre answer to my parliamentary question which stated:
This reflects the Government's view that Mr. Lippitt can make a greater contribution to the country's interests in his new capacity." —[Official Report, 31 March 1980; Vol. 982, c. 34.]
That is a strange reflection on Mr. Lippitt, or GEC, or the Civil Service. I cannot detect to which it applies.
It is a factor that brings the public service into disrepute. Mr. Lippitt may be a man of the utmost integrity. However, when he was giving advice to the Department of Industry in favour of GEC—as was the case—we could not decide whether he was paving the way for his future career or whether he was giving his sound and independent judgment to the best of his ability.
Civil servants who are in a position of great responsibility and high authority are


able to advise Secretaries of States and other Ministers. When such a person moves to a company that has close contacts and is intimately involved with the Department of Industry, people may say that there is an element of corruption involved because a man cannot stand apart from two masters. It is inevitable that that conclusion should be drawn.
This is not the first move that has occurred. It has happened under both Governments. A Mr. Odgers moved in similar circumstances. I was at the Department at that time, and I know that he was intimately involved with GEC. He was a member of the industrial development unit, which was part of the selective financial assistance group which presented cases to the Industrial Development Advisory Board, which in turn was chaired by the vice-chairman of GEC. When Mr. Odgers finished his three years' secondment from a merchant bank, he did not return to the bank—which was a condition of his employment—but went to GEC as a non-executive director.
The tentacles of GEC are too closely entwined with the Department of Industry. Arnold Weinstock was able to ring the Department at any time that he chose and talk to any of the deputy or permanent secretaries on first name terms and attempt—as he did—to set the Secretary of State for Industry against other Secretaries of State within a Labour Cabinet. Those relationships are too close.
The movement of Mr. Lippitt, a deputy secretary, indicates that something is very wrong. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that in future there will not be such movements, that civil servants will help and advise companies—as they do on many occasions—uniformly and without any prejudice, and that they will keep such companies at arm's length. It is important to the maintenance of our public service that there should be an arm's length relationship.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: We should not go into recess before giving the Government an opportunity to place beyond any doubt or possible misunderstanding their attitude to Israel and the Palestinian problem.
The outstanding achievement of the past 30 years in the Middle East has been the Camp David agreement between Egypt and Israel. As a result of that agreement, Egypt has given Israel its friendship, and Israel has not only given Egypt its friendship but made substantial sacrifices of territory and resources. That resulted in the major part of the Sinai returning to Egypt, with all that that meant in terms of the weakening of Israel's defences. Israel is now entirely dependent upon the importation of oil.
The other part of the Camp David agreement concerns negotiations for the autonomy of the West Bank and Gaza, on behalf of the Palestinians who live there. Any agreement on that matter will be difficult, and negotiations may be protracted. It is important that Jordan should be encouraged to join the discussions. If there is to be any hope of a solution to the Palestinian problem, it will come about only if the United States, Israel, Egypt and the European nations agree on their approach and if that approach does not contemplate any dealing with the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
Hitherto, that has been the Government's position. I hope that is still their position. Before we adjourn, I ask the Government to make it absolutely clear, beyond any question of misunderstanding, that that is their position.
Doubts have been raised in the media and elsewhere. We have supported a European approach. But one of the European countries, France, has recently made noises of friendship and support for the PLO.
No one can possibly expect Israel to enter into any agreement that will mean its suicide as a State. A third Palestinian State such as the PLO demands, sandwiched between Jordan and Israel, would mean suicide for Israel and a far worse Palestinian problem than the present one. Such a State would be completely unviable in terms of agriculture, industry and commerce. It would develop as a festering sore of discontent, no doubt irritated further by those whose interest it is to foment instability in the Middle East and elsewhere. The PLO is a terrorist organisation that is utterly determined to destroy Israel.
Although attempts have been made to give the impression that the PLO is moderate, it is clear from the recent utterances of Yasser Arafat and other PLO leaders that the PLO has not moderated. If it appears to have moderated, that is merely a means of gaining time until it can drive Israel into the sea.
I refer to some of the recent statements by PLO leaders. On 21 March 1971, at Buenos Aires, Yasser Arafat said:
There can be no compromise and no moderation … No, we do not want peace. We want war and victory. Peace for us means the destruction of Israel and nothing else.
In Beirut on 31 July 1976 Arafat said:
We will not concede even an inch of Palestine. We will fight a prolonged people's war for the liberation of our territory. We will stand with our rifles in Haifa and Jaffa.
In April 1977 Arafat said:
I am not a man who makes deals or compromises. I shall struggle until the very last inch of Palestine is regained … I foresee a new war, the fifth in the Middle East. This is a revolution of liberation, not compromises. We will never abandon any part of our lands, nor concede any one of our rights.
On 19 February 1979 Arafat said:
Our activities will continue in Tel Aviv and elsewhere until we achieve victory and hoist our flag over Jerusalem and the other cities in the occupied homeland.
On 19 February Arafat said:
We shall fight together, as one Moslem nation, under one flag. We are all zealous of the Moslem faith. We shall all stand together under the Moslem flag.
In June 1979 Arafat said:
The Israelis have to remember that their State will not exist more than 70 years … and 32 years out of it are already gone.
In July 1979 Arafat said:
The Palestine resistance will never agree to a cease-fire before the complete liberation of all Palestine.
Recently in Buenos Aires, in an interview in a newspaper, Arafat said:
Peace for us means the destruction of Israel.
Any suggestion that over the years there has been a moderation of view is completely false. In April 1979 George Habash, the leader of the hard-line Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a faction of the PLO, said:
We repeat and emphasise that co-existence with Zionism is impossible, considering that our conflict with the enemy is a struggle of existence, and not a fight over borders.

In Beirut in June 1979 he said:
The crisis in the region could be resolved by the liquidation of the Zionist entity … We reject the presence of a Palestinian State whose price would be the consecration of the Zionist entity's presence in part of Palestinian territory.
There is no moderation there. There is no possibility that there can be established a PLO State that will not threaten the very survival of the State of Israel. The Palestine Liberation Organisation's covenant makes clear that that is the position. The danger of such a State sandwiched between Jordan and the existing State of Israel is obvious. It would be 21 miles to Haifa from the border. It would be nine miles to Natanya, 11 miles to Tel Aviv, 22 miles to Ashod and 10 miles to Beersheba. All those distances are well within the range of 175-mm artillery and would be covered in a matter of seconds in any air strike. That is the reality.
My right hon. Friend must be aware that any hint that the British Government —I do not think that they have given such a hint, but this is an opportunity before we rise for the Easter Recess to ensure that the hint is non-existent—are prepared to tolerate any dealings with an organisation that would be thus placed to give effect to its ambitions would be utterly unacceptable.
I ask my right hon. Friend to reaffirm that the Government intend to refrain from contracts with the PLO while it continues to have links with terrorism and so long as it fails to endorse the principle of a negotiated settlement in which Isreal's right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries is accepted. The Government should undertake that they will continue to give their support to Israel, Egypt and the United States in the implementation of the Camp David accords. I hope that we may have that reassurance this afternoon.

Mr. William Hamilton: I shall refer to only one matter, the Civil List. On the very day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was painting a grim picture of the deepening depression, the recession and hardship, the Royal payroll was announced for 1980. As the Chancellor was lecturing us on the need to stand on our own feet, to pay our own way and not to seek any more income than we properly earned, the list was


published in Hansard. It appeared on Friday last. In effect, the Chancellor was saying—other Ministers have said it, too—that we must all share the Tory misety—all, that is, except those on £30,000 a year and those who are members of the Royal Family.
Let us consider the facts. Since the early 1970s there have been massive Royal handouts by stealth, or at least by means of a planted yearly question in the House of Commons. There is now no Select Committee to investigate in depth the justification for any claim that the Royal Family might care to make. That was regarded as much too great an intrusion into Royal privacy. It was considered unseemly for hon. Members such as myself to poke their noses into such magic and mystery. It was grubby and greedy, was it not, to talk about money? We just had to make the money available and shut up. That is what now happens every year.
The facts were published in Hansard, and I shall refer to one or two of them, but before doing so I point out that there are 10 named individuals on the list and that the total received by them in 1979 was £715,300. In 1980—the current year —the total for those 10 highly privileged individuals goes up to £849,000, an average per individual of £84,900. A footnote to that answer in Hansard states:
All the increases are directly linked to increased expenses incurred in carrying out the Royal duties."—[Official Report. 26 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 597–8.]
It was not long before the sycophantic press was seeking to demonstrate how hard working those individuals are. On 30 March The Sunday Times contained an article entitled "The productivity of Princesses". That article indicated that last year, contrary to commonly assumed assumptions, Princess Anne was the busiest. A list of her public engagements for last year was given. She had 121 official engagements—about two a week, sometimes three when she was working overtime. Princess Margaret was only slightly less hard worked, with 113 official engagements for the year, and Princess Alexandra had 79 official engagements—about three every fortnight. When the trade unions talk about shorter working weeks, they should take an example from their Royal betters.
Princess Alexandra's 79 engagements last year cost the hard-pressed taxpayers £74,900—about £1,000 a visit. She is now to receive an increase of £10,500, so she will now receive £85,000 a year. Let me put that in perspective. A coal miner slogging his guts out at the coal face five days a week, taking home, say, £100 a week, would need to work 17 years before he earned as much as each of those princesses receives in any one year.
The allowance for Princess Anne leaps from £65,400 last year to £85,000 this year. Some press comment was less sycophantic than others. I quote from "Londoner's Diary" in the Evening Standard of 27 March. Under the headline
The private cost of the Princess's public £20,000",
the article states:
The questions raised by Princess Anne's extra £20,000 are not perhaps as indelicate as they may seem. For while the Princess and her husband seem to show no signs of cutting down their considerable expenditure on horses, the nation through the Civil List spends ever increasing capital amounts on Gatcombe Park which they will be passing on to their children.
The 32-room house in Gloucestershire in the middle of its 700-acre estate occupies a peculiar position in Royal finances. Although bought and redecorated for the couple with a reputed £750,000 of the Queen's private money, it became in 1978 a charge on the Civil List as the Princess's official residence. This change in status was agreed with the Labour Government at the time.
I should like to know whether that was ever agreed by the House, and what is the total cost incurred by the taxpayer on Gatcombe Park as a direct consequence. When a house such as that becomes an official residence, the taxpayer automatically becomes responsible for the complete maintenance of it—for everything except the interior decoration and furnishings. A considerable sum must have been expended on the house as a direct consequence of the Labour Government accepting it as an official residence.
To be fair, the Phillips' household has many commitments. The press made that abundantly clear when the increases in the Civil List were announced. A court spokesman said that they are certainly not being paid for what they do, and that the allowance helps to maintain a certain standard—such as maintaining, for instance, a 32-room mansion and an estate of 730 acres with a 16-unit horse stable


complex which alone cost £100,000 to build. Somebody has to pay for that.
In his Budget Statement, the Chancellor clobbered the unemployed, the sick and the poor. Millions of people in Britain do not know how to make ends meet, and yet the Civil List figures are increased without a murmur of protest. I tried to speak during the Budget debate, and I requested a debate tomorrow. The reason why I am using this occasion is that it is the only opportunity that I have to put my views on record.
The justification for the claim for Princess Anne was that she suddenly discovered that Gatcombe Park had a leaky roof. She bought it from Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who was a good landlord. She should have called in a surveyor before she bought the house, to determine whether the cost of the leaky roof should be charged to Lord Butler or to her. She should not expect the taxpayer to foot the bill.
When Captain Phillips accepted the sponsorship of British Leyland for £60,000, he said that he and Princess Anne were just a young couple with a mortgage. Some young couple! Some mortgage! Our hearts should bleed for them, but we should not foot the bills. They should be like every other young couple with a mortgage, and grin and bear it and manage their affairs without asking the taxpayers to foot the bills. They admitted that they had overspent by a few thousand pounds last year. That is their problem, not ours. We are hard pressed. Last week we listened to the grim two-hour speech of the Chancellor. We are hard pressed, and we should not have those burdens on the public sector borrowing requirement.
I turn now to the question of Princess Margaret. The Leader of the House must be disturbed by the behaviour of that lady. The Department of Health and Social Security recently appointed many hundreds of professional snoopers to catch the scroungers on supplementary benefit. Those snoopers would be much more profitably engaged investigating the higher echelons of our society than those that go into DHSS offices. There is a widely held view, even among pro-royalists, that nobody does more damage to the institution of monarchy than that wayward woman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that whilst he is as free as everyone else to criticise the Civil List, he must refer to the Royal Family in courteous language. It is one of the rules of the House.

Mr. Hamilton: What I said was relatively courteous, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It was exceedingly discourteous by my standards.

Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw.

Mr. Hamilton: I shall certainly not withdraw, unless I am directed to do so by Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the House can have access to the correspondence that I have received from all sections of the community about the behaviour of certain individuals whom I have named. I know that Conservative Members and people in the highest positions of authority believe that certain behaviour is doing a disservice to the institution that they sincerely believe in. I do not happen to believe in it, but I know that there are people throughout the country who do but who deplore the kind of behaviour that has been going on. I do not need to spell it out, because it has been plastered all over the press. It is time that the Government made their views known. As taxpayers, we should not be asked to foot the bill for that kind of indefensible behaviour.
This is not a party matter. Despite all the anger and distaste, successive Governments have mollycoddled and cosseted with cash and accommodation over the years people whose behaviour has been reprehensible.
In the name of justice and sanity, can such behaviour go on any longer? One can expect it from a Conservative Government, because the institution is all part of the establishment to which they belong. But we expected much more radical approaches by our own Government. We did not get them. The sycophancy was even greater among Labour Ministers when we were in power. So in that sense it is no party matter.
There must be a return to far greater accountability to the House for what goes on in the institution of monarchy. It is no good pouring out money on the Royal yacht and the Royal flight of aircraft.


which is to be modernised at a cost of God knows how many millions of pounds. There is not as much accountability to the House as there should be. There should be a return to the Civil List Select Committee procedure, under which claims would not be granted until there had been a comprehensive and detailed investigation to justify them.
I hope that the point has been made. The Leader of the House and I have crossed swords on these matters many times. This will not be the last such occasion. I know what the right hon Gentleman's views are, but I think that privately he will agree with some of the points that I have made. If that is so, the debate will have been well worth while.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I had hoped not to trouble the House tonight, but some of the comments that referred to my constituency should be answered.
Therefore, I shall not deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), with his obsessive concern to make as many unattractive comments about the Royal Family as he can. The hon. Gentleman never mentions the enormous sums that they earn for this country in the form of revenue from tourists. They have also provided for the national Exchequer a great deal more money through handing over Royal lands to the State than anything the House has ever offered them.
Many of us believe that few people contribute as much to this country as the Royal Family do, and we are sad that small numbers of people who do not represent any noteworthy group constantly speak so offensively about members of the Royal Family. It is a pity that we have heard another playing of that gramophone record by the hon. Gentleman.
The question of the Government's responsibility to deal with the matter of cruise missiles has been raised. Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House accept that we need a clear undertaking that the Government will provide time, if not before the recess at least at a reasonable date before the missiles are put into position, for the House to discuss the whole nature of our nuclear defence?
I ask that question not on the basis of the traditional anti-nuclear stance of the

hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—with the notes that he holds in his top pocket—but for a much more fundamental reason. This country owes a great deal to the consistent defence that has been provided by NATO since 1948. The peace of Europe has been defended for a longer period this century because of its strength than at any previous time. It would be wrong if we did not have the opportunity to welcome the establishment of cruise missiles in this country as a further significant contribution towards the peace of Europe and of the world.
It would be morally wrong for us so to weaken our defences that we encouraged aggression. There is no doubt that that is as immoral a stand as can be imagined. Many of us believe that the hon. Gentleman, with his constant demands, is trying to make party political propaganda out of matters that should be the subject of a much more serious debate than that which he invites us to have.
The hon. Gentleman flippantly suggested that because some of us did not oppose his Ten-Minute Bill we had avoided the issue. We felt, and I still feel, that to bandy words with the hon. Gentleman on the subject of referendums in East Anglia, when he cannot remember the name of the town from which he has received a communication, and when it seems remarkably likely that he cannot tell us where East Anglia is, is to lower ourselves to a level to which we are not prepared to go.
This is the sovereign Parliament of Britain. The Members for East Anglia are elected by our constituents to represent their interests in the House. It is our intention, as it has been in the past, when the exact locations of cruise missiles are proposed to examine them and discuss them properly here. We shall not be led astray by all kinds of populist comments from the hon. Gentleman. We shall ask the Government to give a proper opportunity to discuss the real issues: first, whether this country should be defended; secondly, whether the country is in any sense challenged by aggression; thirdly, whether that challenge must be answered by an updating of our nuclear force.
Those are three sensible points for discussion. They are not properly put down on a partial referendum proposed by the hon. Member for Keighley; they are suitable subjects for discussion in the


House. I ask my right hon. Friend to give time for that discussion not because I wish to oppose the provision of cruise missiles in Britain but because I wish properly to examine the importance of defence against those countries whose aggressive purposes have been shown not only by the invasion and occupation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia but by their continued occupation of Czechoslovakia, Romania, East Germany, Poland—

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Georgia.

Mr. Gummer: Georgia, indeed, and the Ukraine. Those countries are under the thumb of Soviet aggression. I wish to discuss whether, in relation to those countries that the hon. Member for Keighley appears so easily to allow to be stronger than ourselves, defence is a necessary part of our policy.

Mr. Cryer: Mr. Cryer I wonder why the hon. Gentleman did not press for this debate before his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence went to the NATO meeting without coming to this sovereign Parliament but going on television and explaining what he was going to decide. Why did not the hon. Gentleman press for a debate in this sovereign Parliament? Why is he now seeking a debate after the decision has been made? Does he agree with that?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I should have pressed for a debate on a subject on which the House had already decided.

Mr. Cryer: No, it had not.

Mr. Gummer: The House had decided upon it. Since Clement Attlee agreed to the first atomic bomb, the House has successively and continually supported the nuclear element in our defence. This is merely the next stage in that nuclear element. The hon. Gentleman is opposed to a nuclear element. He was a member of a Government who supported that nuclear element, but did not resign on that issue. Indeed, he joined a Government who were committed to the nuclear element.

Mr. Cryer: Not to cruise missiles.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman now says that there is something qualitatively different about the cruise missile. Yet the cruise missile will mean the removal of over 1,000 nuclear warheads from this country. It is safer, it is far more flexible—

Mr. Cryer: And it is American.

Mr. Gummer: —and it is more protectable than the present situation. There is no difference between the control over the cruise missile and those missiles which are already here largely controlled by American forces. The hon. Gentleman can point to no difference between them, except that it is a populist campaign. The hon. Gentleman is not as concerned about Russian aggression as many Conservative Members are. The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the nation.
The time has come to ask the hon. Gentleman some clear questions, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make sure that we have a debate on this subject so that the hon. Gentleman can answer these questions. The first question that I hope the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of explaining to this nation in such a debate is: why is he prepared to leave us defenceless against the Soviet Union? The second question is: why was he a member of a Government who were committed to the nuclear deterrent, and why did he resign on a totally different matter? The third question is: why is it that, whereas he believes in the denuding of our defences, whereas he accepts that this nation may reduce her defences against the Soviet Union, he has not been prepared to come out publicly in the constant attack on the Soviet Union which Conservative Members have mounted?
I believe that the debate for which I am asking is one that we must have. It is a debate that we need to have, not because we are opposed to the cruise missile but because we want to flush out from the Labour Party those whose concern for this country is less than that of those of us—

Mr. Cryer: Mass murderer.

Mr. Gummer: I have been called many things, but to be referred to as a mass murderer seems in some senses to be opposed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I think that the expression "mass murder" ought to be withdrawn.

Mr. Gummer: That seems a slightly unparliamentary phrase. Indeed, it sums up the comments of the Labour Party in my constituency. The Labour Party in my constituency, rather like the Suffolk Labour Party, has decided to dissociate itself from the Labour Party in the House because it is opposed to all nuclear defence and nuclear power as well. It has suggested that any kind of nuclear defence is wrong.
One of the reasons for the debate which I hope my right hon. Friend can arrange is to give an opportunity to the Labour Party to declare where it stands. Does it support the hon. Member for Keighley or does it continue in the tradition of the Labour Party, which is to be opposed to Russian aggression? That is the question that we have to ask. I hope that, when the opportunity arises, my right hon. Friend will arrange a debate on this subject so that the people of Suffolk will have the opportunity of hearing the representatives that they elected in an election in which those representatives made clear their position on nuclear arms say what we believe—namely, that the people of Suffolk are proud to help in the defence of Britain.
It is all right for Labour Members to laugh, but it was people like them who left this country defenceless against the Nazis. It was the Peace Pledge Union and the other Left-wing "wets" who left this country defenceless against the other Fascist group—not the Russian Fascists, but the black Fascists. [Interruption.] The Russians died only two years after they had fought on behalf of the Nazis—a fact that the hon. Member for Keighley often forgets.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman relate these remarks to the Easter Recess?

Mr. Gummer: I agree that relation with the Easter Recess is important. If my right hon. Friend cannot promise us a debate on this subject before the Easter Recess, I hope that he will promise one immediately after the Easter Recess. I was led astray by the animal noises from the Opposition Benches.
Those of us who represent the people of Suffolk ask the House to give us an opportunity to state clearly that we respect the integrity of this nation. We are concerned with the defence of this nation. We are not prepared to be used for cheap party political propaganda led by the hon. Member for Keighley, who I doubt has set foot within East Anglia, of which we are proud. We would assert, and want the opportunity to assert, our desire to play our part in the defence of a nation for which we care.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I have listened to every speech today. The debate and the subjects that have been raised show the wisdom of the House in throwing out the recommendation of the Select Committee that the debate should not take place.
I do not criticise the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—who is in, but not within, the Chamber—for making the points that he made. He used the rules of the House.
The subjects raised today justify our original decision, if only by flushing out some of the East Anglia Tory Members on the issue of the cruise missile. It does not matter whether my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has been to East Anglia. I have been to East Anglia. I worked in East Anglia. I have family connections with the constituency of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer). I shall be spending the Easter weekend in his constituency. I spend many bank holidays in that area. I can claim to have taken more work to East Anglia than the hon. Gentleman in that I have been responsible for moving industry into that area.

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Member will state how many jobs he has provided for East Anglia, no doubt we could argue about that. Will he accept that some of us have put down a large number of questions about cruise missiles? We have constantly questioned the Minister on the subject. We therefore have a right to comment on it as it affects East Anglia. The hon. Member does not represent an East Anglia constituency, even though he may spend his holidays there. I am happy to invite him to East Anglia to discuss these matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is tempted to say how many jobs he brought to East Anglia, will he relate that to the Easter Recess?

Mr. Rooker: Everything that I say will be related to why we should not go into recess on the dates proposed. I do not know how many East Anglian jobs I am responsible for having created. The factory that I helped to establish there has grown enormously since it was built. It is not in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eye, but in Ipswich.
The hon. Member for Eye was an expert on Lewisham, West until the electorate there gave him his marching orders. Of course, it may be unfair for my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley to call him a potential mass murderer, but "carpet bagger" would certainly have been in order.
The last point that I wish to make in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley concerns the vicious personal attack by the hon. Member for Eye suggesting that my hon. Friend was not adequately representing his constituents. My hon. Friend's majority at Keighley is even smaller than mine in Perry Barr. His is only 78, but he was returned to this House at the last election against the national swing. We were both returned because—and I say this with all modesty—of our records in representing our constituents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with whether we go away for Easter. Will the hon. Member relate his remarks to that?

Mr. Rooker: The point is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if we adjourn for the Easter Recess I shall be in no position to come here and defend my hon. Friend from the attacks upon him by Conservative Members. However, I leave that issue to rest. The East Anglian Tories have been flushed out and we have brought out into the open the fact that they have not been doing their job properly in defending their constituents.
I now come to why the House should not go into recess. There are two reasons concerning my constituency. The central one is that for the past six weeks there has been a strike, stoppage of work or trade dispute at the Birmingham assay

office. This matter is not so parochial as it might at first sight appear. There are only three assay offices in the country—at Birmingham, Sheffield and London.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred to an early Act of Parliament, and I now refer to one which goes back a long time. The Birmingham assay office was set up by an Act of Parliament in 1772. Since mid-February, 200 of the staff have been on strike because they were faced with a shortage of work, allegedly due to the increase in the price of gold and silver, which resulted in their being told that 43 workers would have to be made redundant. That number was whittled down to 38. Against the original wishes of the workers concerned, 21 volunteers for redundancy were brought forward, leaving only 16 jobs to be accounted for. All this has happened during the course of the dispute, when no work has been done.
Initially there was a sit-in, but the police had the workers thrown out after three weeks because, it was alleged, they could interfere with the extremely valuable goods in the assay office. The workers who were on strike voted to accept a £15 a week reduction in pay to fund the 16 jobs in question under a work-sharing scheme.
I raise this issue today because the workers are still on strike. They voted this morning to continue it until the bitter end. It may seem that there is no Government responsibility involved—the Government are opting out of industrial relations—but the work at the Birmingham assay office is of extreme importance to our valuable export trade in jewellery. Some 10 million items a year are hallmarked by the assay office in Birmingham.
Of the three assay offices, only the Birmingham office is unionised. Work at the Sheffield office dropped off 80 per cent. because of the rise in gold and silver prices. The figure for the London office was 40 per cent. However, there was no threat of redundancy at those offices, and the natural conclusion is that the Birmingham office has been got at because the trade union is recognised and active there. Much to the annoyance of the workers on strike, and to the shame of some people in this country, work has been diverted from the Birmingham office to Sheffield during the dispute even though the workers at Birmingham have asked Shef-


field not to do it. There are some well-known trade unionists in Sheffield, so perhaps they ought to get a few of their members along to picket the assay office there.
The reason for our not going into recess and the Government's connection with this dispute are both to be found in section 20 of the Hallmarking Act 1973, which contains the power for the Secretary of State to
cause a local inquiry to be held in connection with the discharge of any of his functions under this Act or … with any of the functions of assay offices.
So he has the statutory duty, if there are major problems in the assay offices, to order a local inquiry.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: He has the power, not a duty.

Mr. Rooker: Well, I am asking him to use the power. I am asking the Leader of the House to tell me that the Department of Trade will be contacted about the problem. It knows about the dispute. It has been continuing for six weeks. The employers in this case are a peculiar band known as the Guardians of the Standard of Wrought Plate. They number 36. When one of them passes on, another is elected by the remainder to take his place. Most of the members turn up for their meetings in their Porsches and Rolls-Royces. They have refused to get involved in the dispute. The chairman told the leader of the workers at the office that the Guardians could not get involved because that would tamper with tradition. I do not regard that as an acceptable reason for allowing the dispute to carry on.
The West Midlands police, who are guarding the assay office, have told the workers on picket duty that they have a duty to accept redundancy as have other workers in steel and in British Leyland, but not, I gather, in the police service.

Mr. John Sever: Because of the soundings that he has taken, particularly among the employees of the small jewellery companies that are situated in the centre of Birmingham—many of them within my constituency—does my hon. Friend agree that there is great anxiety about the difficulties and problems occasioned to them by the dispute and as a result of the wild

fluctuation in gold and silver prices, and that these are placing almost unbearable burdens upon them? Does he agree that these people deserve the very support that he is seeking from the Government?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is correct. The jewellery quarter in Birmingham is probably the epitome of the small business. It is a unique part of the industry of Birmingham. Many of the companies cannot afford the time for their goods to be moved around the country to be hallmarked. Some of those firms will go bust if the strike is allowed to continue.
The Department of Trade can get involved. I make the plea now that it should do so. It will not be satisfactory for it to adopt the high-handed approach taken by the Department of Industry over the steel strike. Birmingham cannot afford the complacency shown by the Government towards industrial relations so far. Time is not on our side. About 186 employees of the assay office are still out on strike. A few have left during the strike, which is normal, because they cannot afford to be not working. The remaining workers have offered to accept work-sharing and a cut in pay—a most unusual arrangement and something that I should have thought would be applauded by the Conservatives. So far, however, there has been no response from the Government.
This is an important matter because of the unique and historic role played by the assay office. It is a classic example of the protection of trade. People buy products from this country because they trust the hallmarking process, established over two centuries, as giving good value for money. It is a tragedy that the dispute has been allowed to continue and that the Government have taken no action.
The second point that I wish to raise —I am sure that the Leader of the House will not be surprised that I return to it —is the Rossminster tax case. I last raised this issue on the Christmas Adjournment motion on 18 December. Since that debate, when the Leader of the House answered some of the points that I put, concern has been expressed inside the Inland Revenue that an attempt will be made to limit the scope of the tax


fraud case regarding the Rossminster companies and group of companies. That is a cause for concern.
The allegation is that the fall-guy for the Rossminster case will be the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), in order to give the Minister of State, Treasury and the Secretary of State for Trade a clear run out of the matter. That is the concern expressed inside the Revenue. My request is a simple one. If the Leader of the House cannot give a response today, I certainly require a response in writing at some future date.

Mr. Peter Viggers: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman has referred to another hon. Member, may I ask whether he observed the normal courtesy and informed that hon. Member that he intended to do so?

Mr. Rooker: I am in fact defending the hon. Member to whom I referred. I do not want the hon. Member for Abingdon to be the fall-guy in this affair while the others get off because the inquiries are limited. I am making no attack whatever. I am not impugning anyone's motives in this case. I have never done so. If anything that I say can be taken as an attack on the hon. Member for Abingdon, even though some might think that I have justification for doing so, let me make it clear that that is not so. I am saying that it would be unfair if he were the fall-guy, should these inquiries be curtailed.
I simply want an assurance that there will be no curtailment of the powers of the Revenue in this case. This case is not sub judice. There are no charges and no prosecutions pending. The fact remains that statements have been made by the Minister of State, Treasury in the last couple of months to the effect that the investigating powers of the Revenue ought to be curtailed. For him to make that statement while this case is under the perusal of the investigation officers of the Revenue can clearly be taken as a warning to the Revenue from him to "watch it". I want an assurance that the Revenue will not have to watch it and that it will have complete and total freedom to investigate, under existing laws, every aspect of this case and to interview every person who is involved, whatever his involvement.
If there is concern inside the Revenue, I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is concern outside it. This matter has been quiet for the last few months, but Opposition Members have not forgotten it. Opposition Members, unlike Conservative Members, are concerned about any abuse in the public expenditure system, whether it is public expenditure in terms of benefits or public expenditure in terms of tax relief. One is as much a handout as the other. "Handout" is the wrong word. I think that my hon. Friends will understand what I mean.
We shall attack all forms of abuse wherever we see them. The Tory Party is defending those who wish to abuse the tax system. The number of tax investigators has been cut. Concern has been raised within the Revenue about the Rossminster case, and that has to be answered. It needs a fairly simple answer, namely, that the Revenue has carte blanche, under existing law, to pursue this investigation to the bitter end. I hope that it will be a bitter end for some Conservative Members.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I should like to explain why the House should not adjourn without discussing a particular British institution that is widely respected abroad, earns revenue for the country and is generally held in fair esteem. I am not referring, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) did, to the Royal Family. I agree with the sotto voce comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) that it was a great pity that the only princesses that could be sent back to the factory, if not up to specification, were those made at British Leyland.
I should like to raise the position of the British Council following the cuts made in its budget for 1980–81 and those that will follow for the next three or four years. I wish to say to the House and to the Leader of the House, who has an interest in cultural and educational matters, how disastrous and demoralising are these cuts. It is humbug to sit through the debate on the Easter Recess motion and hear a number of speeches from Conservative Members, all of whom have now departed, running down the BBC and various institutions of cultural exchange without ever mentioning the real harm


done by the cuts now imposed on the BBC and the British Council.
The cuts on the British Council for the coming year will work out at about 11 per cent. of its total budget. I am told that they will amount to 27 per cent. of its total budget over the next three years. The effect of those cuts is extremely serious. I have some questions that I wish to put to the Leader of the House. The cuts will mean that, right across the world, there will be a massive cutback in the staff and activities of the British Council. This will affect, among other things, our export trade, the advisory tours that the British Council runs abroad and the specialist help given in overseas countries to British exporters. That should be a serious matter for anyone in the House who wishes to see this country paying its way.
I should like to refer to publishing and the book trade. The funds available for book promotion have been cut back seriously. I believe that the cut in the corning year is 40 per cent. The consequences for the book trade in this country will be serious. Those hon. Members, like myself, with a large publishing concern in their constituencies, which has returned pretty disastrous figures in the first half of the year, will know what is happening as a result of some of the Government cuts. We tend to regard cuts in the public sector as money that has been saved. When those cuts help to diminish the amount of orders that go into private industry, they help to diminish the buoyancy and production of the industry upon which everyone bases hopes for industrial revival.
Another topic I should like to mention is the teaching of English abroad. In many areas of the world our influence is trumpeted loudly by a Government spending more money on the Armed Forces and prepared to adopt a higher profile in defence matters but almost entirely destroying our cultural presence in countries where we wish to have influence. We are told that the Government are begging the British Council to increase its presence in Zimbabwe. But the British Council has been running down its presence in many parts of Africa and central and southern America—areas of the world that are in ferment and where a British presence in the cultural sphere is crucially important.
Our European competitors take the reverse view. The French have just announced a strengthening of their cultural budget by about 15 per cent. They are increasing their budget, which in real terms, in any case, is far larger than ours, by precisely the same proportion as we are reducing ours. The result, as hon. Members who have recently been abroad will confirm, is that in most countries the British Council offices, if left at all, are housed in tatty buildings with a shrunken and demoralised staff and a diminished and decaying stock of books.
Down the road the Alliance Francaise has moved into new offices and is spreading the cultural presence of France and the francophone mission in that country with success and élan. This country is doing neither. We are allowing the British Council to run down. The consequence of the cuts imposed upon the British Council will almost certainly mean that over the next two or three years it will have to make a major decision on which it needs, as the House needs, the views of the Government.
Should the council try to preserve a wide overseas network as it has done up to now? Should there be a council presence in most of the important areas of the world? If it does that, it will not be able to maintain its main functions intact. If it maintains those functions intact—which is the alternative—that avoids an irrevocable dispersal of specialist knowledge and experience but it will also mean that the council's geographical spread is greatly diminished.
I want to hear from the Leader of the House what he thinks the British Council should do and what value he places upon it. Over many years he has made a contribution to the great debate about education and the arts and about the way in which those elements are enshrined in British national life. How much of a contribution in the overseas projection of this country and what it does—and, most importantly, in what it sells—will he allow the British Council to make? Which of the choices open to the British Council—to maintain a geographical spread or maintain its specialist services in contradiction to that geographical spread—would he advise it to make in the next few years?
If we look ahead—not just to 1980–81 but over a period of three or four years


during which more cuts are projected—what will the right hon. Gentleman say to British Council staff to explain why they should continue to work there and why they are valued by the Government and the people of this country and what their promotion and expansion prospects are?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise to the House for arriving late. I have just returned from the Requiem Mass for Archbishop Romero. I make my remarks before the Easter Recess in the hope that, during the Easter Recess, the Government will not think of reestablishing diplomatic links or sending back an ambassador to E1 Salvador.
It is important that people of all parties in this country use every opportunity we have as a democracy to emphasise to other countries that we care about what is happening to them. I hope that Right-wing politicians like myself will pay special attention to Right-wing countries where we might have some influence and that Left-wing politicians will do the same in Left-wing countries where they might have influence. It seems better to go about improving relations that way rather than by the Right criticising the Left and vice versa.
Ten days ago I did not believe that it would be necessary for me to raise such an issue as this. Nine days ago Archbishop Romero was assassinated. On Palm Sunday his funeral was disrupted by bombs and shootings and death. I believe that it would have been possible to avoid most of that if in 1977, when President Molina lost power to General Romero—no relation of the dead archbishop—the united Western world had stepped in to say that we would not tolerate the giving up of land reforms in El Salvador. We should have said in 1978 that we would not tolerate the getting rid of the relatively fair elections which gave victory to the opposition parties, an alliance between the Christian and Social Democrats.
Had we been faster off the mark, the deteriorating situation in E1 Salvador would not have got as far as it has. I hope we may learn from the tragedies of the last 10 days and be of help in avoiding the further tragedies that are likely to come.
I hope that in this House of Commons we shall always find sufficient time to care for the troubles and the problems faced by others. We shall thus gain an understanding which will enable us to use our influence not only on our Government but also on our normal political contacts to make sure that the tragedy that is happening in E1 Salvador does not happen in too many other countries.

Mr. Michael McGuire: You took me unawares, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came in late for the debate and was deferring to my colleagues who were here before me. However, I am pleased to have been called.
I should like the Leader of the House to respond to three points. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been pressed for debates on particular subjects—even for two-day debates—but I hope that he will be able to find time for a long overdue debate on the North-West. We have not had a full day's debate on the problems of the North-West for a long time. In the last Parliament I think we had one debate on it, in Standing Committee. We had a morning's debate when, if I can put it so, we were able to discuss almost anything, and that was next to useless. I have pressed on the Floor of the House for a similar debate because if we could get agreement through the usual channels we should choose one item and debate it thoroughly, though such debates are no substitute for debates in this Chamber.
The North-West has many problems. I am well aware of the problems of Wales, Scotland and the Northern region. But I think that my hon. Friends representing those parts of the United Kingdom have had, if not a good run, a chance to express their views. The recent debates on the steel strike have almost been mini regional debates. We were not able to draw the North-West region into those discussions because, unfortunately, we lost our steel industry a long time ago.
I was delighted that on 31 October we decided by a substantial vote to retain the opportunity for Back Benchers to raise the variety of subjects that have been raised today. It would have been a sad day if we had allowed the Government to rob us of this opportunity. We need a response from the Leader of the House on the important matter of a full


day's debate—perhaps two days—on energy. We tend to touch on it early in the middle of the night in perhaps 1½-hour debates. Energy is of prime importance and every country in the world now has its attention directed to the formulation of an energy policy that takes note of the international situation.
We have had statements from the Government, and one three-hour debate and one 1½-hour debate. On each occasion the chances for Back Benchers to contribute were slim. On one occasion there were four Front Bench speakers in the debate, who more or less took up all of the time. It is of fundamental importance that the House should have at least a full day's debate on energy matters.
I sent a note to the Minister for Social Security about the unequal treatment which this House, unwittingly, has accorded to the families of people serving prison sentences in Northern Ireland. When this problem was brought to my attention, I did not believe it. I did not believe that anyone living on the English mainland would be denied the assistance necessary to visit a relative in prison in Northern Ireland. The family of a prisoner in England, Scotland or Wales would receive the proper treatment which the House—I cannot recall whether it is /aid down in an affirmative order—has laid down. Assistance is given by the DHSS to allow wives and families to visit prisoners as part of the rehabilitation process. That facility does not apply if the prisoner is serving his sentence in Northern Ireland and his near relatives live in England, Scotland or Wales.
I questioned the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the position of a Northern Ireland family which wants to visit a near relative serving a sentence on the mainland. I was told that such families are given assistance to visit prisoners in England, Scotland or Wales and Northern Ireland. The only people who are unfairly treated are the prisoners in Northern Ireland whose families live in Great Britain. The House will not, and should not, accept that.
I also questioned the Home Secretary, because he has overall responsibility. I asked why the situation had been allowed to occur. It seems to have been the result of an oversight. I asked what estimate had been made of the number of extra staff

required to administer a fairer scheme. I did not need to be told that not many extra were needed.
The Minister for Social Security, who is in the Chamber, should take note that we believe that the situation is not acceptable. There is supposed to be equal treatment before the law for all the citizens of the United Kingdom, although we make different arrangements in some respects for people who live in Northern Ireland.
The present situation is neither right nor just. I do not believe that Ministers could, or would, want to defend it. The Minister of State has drawn the short straw. He should take speedy steps to remove the absurd anomaly. Our decisions on 31 October to retain Adjournment debates for Back Benchers to raise matters such as this is justified. We should be proud that we continue to give Back Benchers the opportunity to raise important constituency and national issues.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) for a debate on energy. That subject has not been treated as seriously as it should be. We hope that the Leader of the House will arrange such a debate after Easter. I also agree with my hon. Friend that we should have a debate on a region. He will forgive me if my choice is different from his. I believe that we must have a debate on London and its 7 million people. They represent one-sixth of the country and are entitled to have their share of debates.
We must have a debate on London because of the anxiety that Government policy on housing in London in moving towards chaos. Yesterday, April Fool's Day, the GLC decided to divest itself of its responsibility for strategic housing in the Greater London area. It has disposed of about 148.000 hereditaments in its care. As a direct result, it is possible that local government tenants, who occupy about 78 per cent. of the hereditaments in my constituency, will he unable to transfer to any form of alternative accommodation.
The local authority can try to help by using resources to build and rehabilitate


property to satisfy the needs of the elderly who need warden accommodation and families who depend entirely on help to obtain proper housing. About 12,000 or 36,000 people, families are on the waiting list. How do the Government react? The local authority attempted to help elderly people who need special care in warden-assisted property by imposing a compulsory purchase order on a site on which it planned to build a large number of dwellings. Before the Secretary of State had been in office long, he countered that compulsory purchase order in favour of a speculator—the Fairview company. That company has taken over the site. It will not build homes for the old people who are waiting desperately to be housed.
The same speculative firm has gobbled up an area in my constituency. It has hoarded up the area with corrugated sheeting. This is one of the great, dynamic speculators about which we hear so much. I complained bitterly. In one part of the site tenants still occupy houses. The company will not rehouse those tenants. It is busy trying to winkle them out by sending them to the local authority offices to urge the local authority to rehouse them, so that the company can take complete control of the site.
I wonder what we are talking about. It will cost about £50,000 for the local authority to rehouse tenants for a speculator. The local authority has already rehoused a large number of tenants. I have insisted upon that because of the appalling conditions. The owner of the site is a friend of the Government. The speculator will not carry out necessary work. One of my constituents lives in deplorable conditions. His home is damp, rain leaks in, vandalism is rife and the back of the house is being pulled down. The local authority environmental health officer is trying to put pressure on the speculator but he takes no notice. It is hypocritical of the Government to keep saying how much they are doing for housing in London under such circumstances.
The Government are cutting housing improvement programmes. Some of the inner London boroughs have a reason for

wanting a substantial housing improvement programme, but the total sums have been cut drastically. The Government are sending out a flurry of instructions. Some of them are dated 31 March and others 1 April. The instructions say that local authorities should not begin any rehabilitation work on any of their projects until they have received affirmation from the Secretary of State.
Previously, there was a cost limit for which subsidies were paid. There was no argument between the Government and the local authorities. The local authorities could commence work and subsidies were paid up to the agreed limit. If local authorities went above that level, it was a matter for negotiation between the local authority and the Government. The local authority had to justify its action. If it succeeded the subsidy was paid, but if it failed it was not. The point of the argument was that the local authority had to be in a position to begin the rehabilitation so that people such as those in my area could be rehoused as quickly as possible.
I cannot understand why the Secretary of State has now decided to do business in this way, by sending out the instruction dated 1 April. We have to look behind that approach. There will be an enormous increase in the number of applications, because the other instruction requires that a far more detailed description of the work that is to be done be submitted. That is not all; a description of the work to be done on every individual property has to be submitted; previously the properties could be treated en bloc. This will mean that an enormous amount of work will come into the Department, and I ascertained today that it has only 14 architects to deal with such work in London. Additionally, there is a proposal that the number of architects should be cut by three. So, although the amount of work will be increased, the number of architects will be reduced.
The amount of work will be increased because the number of applications for approval will increase. The councils are told that they are not to start work until final approval has been given and are warned that they will receive no subsidies if they do not wait. The number of architects is being reduced, even though it is already too small to deal with the


volume of work, which means that councils will wait that much longer for the final decision.
In London the DCL will be substantially exceeded, and the Government know that. That has always been so. The Government are aware, therefore, that the buildings will not be rehabilitated and they will continue to delay and vacillate and finally, because the DCL will be exceeded, the whole project will be turned down. That has already been done in one London borough; two schemes have been turned down because they exceeded permitted expenditure. One of those schemes was in a conservation area and the amount of work that could be done was limited. The other was a housing action area where a bulldozer could not be used.
When I asked the Department what should be done, I was told that we would have to create open space—that is in a housing action area where one is supposed to be building homes.
One can see the issue that is being raised here, especially in an area where the council has rehoused tenants from those two sites. Already a vast amount of ratepayers' money has been spent rehousing those people and now the sites are held vacant because the Minister will not give approval. One can only come to the conclusion that what the Government have in mind by imposing this Machiavellian legislation is to ensure that the number of these sites is increased so that councils are forced to hand them over to the greedy speculators at knock-down prices. So the ratepayer and the taxpayer will have paid for the rehousing of such people and the site is then handed over to the speculators who simply makes money.
What hypocrisy for a Government to pretend—as we have heard so often in the past few weeks—that the Department is actively reducing the number of planning delays and speeding up procedures while the Government are deliberately deciding to slow down the procedure in the way that I have described. In areas such as mine, where we have such a difficult housing problem, we shall be unable to solve it.
I am urging local authorities to erect information boards on all such sites informing people that the Conservative Government have deliberately created this

situation. This information must be publicised, because one cannot rely on the newspapers. The public will thus be able to see exactly who is responsible for the conditions in which people have to live.
The housing problem in London is so bad that I urge the Leader of the House to see that we have a debate on this matter as soon as possible. There are many other problems in the London area, but I have highlighted this problem because of the flurry of instructions emanating from the Department of the Environment which, I believe, will have a catastrophic effect. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will arrange a debate on London as soon as possible.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Like the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley), I returned to this country in the last 48 hours, having been a member of an overseas parliamentary delegation, to find correspondence on three issues that seriously affect my constituency, all relating to the excessively high unemployment figures which were published while I was overseas. The seasonally adjusted figure for the Northern region is 121,600. That is surely the worst figure that we have had in any normal period in the post-war years—indeed, I believe that it is over 40 years since we have had that type of figure, which represents 9·1 per cent. unemployed across the board in the Northern region.
The first major issue that was brought to my attention was a letter from the managing director of the Vickers Elswick works advising me that unless that company received an order by the end of this month the first tranche of notices of redundancies—about 350—would be issued. This follows closely on the closure of the Tress engineering works and the Vickers Scotswood factory, which is in my constituency. I should also say that the Vickers Elswick plant is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans), although the bulk of the workers reside in my constituency.
I do not apologise for raising at this late hour the issue of the order for 77 Chieftain tanks, because I have raised it at least six times in the Chamber with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence within the last few


months and we are still no nearer an answer.
As Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army 18 months ago, I was told by the Army Board that we urgently needed a decision to purchase 77 Chieftain tanks to bring the war maintenance reserve of the British Army of the Rhine up to strength. I accepted the advice of the military members of the Army Board and convinced my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), the then Secretary of State for Defence, that this order was necessary. It went through the machinery of government just as we approached the general election. Yet here we are, 11 months after the election, and still there has been no decision on this order, which I am convinced would have gone to Vickers Elswick.
I say to the Leader of the House that this is now an urgent issue. As I have said, the letter I have received from the managing director of Vickers Elswick clearly states that unless an order in some shape or form is received by the end of this month redundancy notices will become operative.
I recently spoke to a colleague of mine who has visited the BAOR. Personnel in BAOR are throwing their hats in the air because they believe that they will shortly be getting the Challenger tank, which is a revised version of the Shir tank. I quickly skipped through the defence White Paper and I saw nothing which could give the BAOR any confidence. There are only four lines on future tank plans and there is nothing which indicates any likely orders in the near future.
Secondly, I have received a mass of letters from constituents about the alleged decision of the Tyne and Wear county council to re-route tanker loads from the Al to the A69. I have not had time to contact the county council. I can only assume that my constituents have seen a press report. Nevertheless, I can understand their reasoning if the county council has taken such a decision.
Clearly the A1—part of which is the Tyne tunnel—is vulnerable to any form of tanker accident which involves either explosives or inflammable materials. However, the alternative is to re-routed

down Ponteland Road, Silver Lonnon and Denton Road, which are all heavily populated areas. The only answer to this serious question, which is causing extreme concern among my constituents, judging by the type of letter that I have received, is to get on with the building of the western bypass. Again, I do not apologise for raising this matter. I have pressed the Minister of Transport over and over again. Such a development would have a major impact on unemployment in the area and would give a badly needed boost to the construction industry.
The third matter that was brought to my attention in correspondence is that at a time of appalling unemployment in the area the House has learnt—again, while I have been overseas—via a written reply that the Government grant to the North of England Development Council is to be cut savagely for the next three years. The North of England Development Council is a major employment and promotional body in the Northern region. In today's circumstances, surely its activities are more important than ever.
At this stage, I do not want to get involved in a debate on the best form of employment promotion body for the North of England. Obviously, there has been a fair bit of discussion about it. However, with the misery that we are facing as a result of such high unemployment and a multiplicity of calculated Government decisions, which will further increase unemployment in the North-East, it is nothing short of a criminal act to cut the money which is so badly needed for employment promotion.

Mr. Michael Foot: I should like to comment briefly on the debate. If I do not touch on the speeches delivered by everyone, particularly those by my hon. Friends, I hope that they will not think it discourteous in any way. However, there are some remarks which my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have made to which I should like to add a few comments.
Every hon. Member who has spoken, and those who have listened, must agree that the House of Commons made a wise decision when it did not accept the advice of the Procedure Committee with regard to the organisation of this debate. I was glad to see that Conservative Members were not


intimidated by the shameful and disgraceful pressures that have been put on them during the past two or three hours. We all watched with horror the scenes that happened, and I congratulate them on their independence and spirit as well as on their determination to resist pressures from any quarter whatever. I am sure that that will continue the tradition of the House with regard to these debates in the years to come.
First, I should like to refer to the speeches made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) and Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). They referred to the siting of the Inmos project and the developments associated with it. We believe that it would be wrong if any announcement about these matters were made during the recess. If the Government had any such devilish thoughts in their mind, I am sure that they have now abandoned them in view of the representations made by my right hon. Friends. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us in a few minutes that any decision on this matter will be stated to the House, so that we can have the opportunity of cross-examination. We believe that there may have been some departure from the undertakings that have been given in the past. Such a project is of great importance, particularly to areas which are hit by heavy unemployment. I therefore hope that we shall have a proper answer on that subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) raised the same topic as I raised in the debate on the motion for the Christmas Adjournment. I referred to the injury which Government policies were inflicting on the book trade and the British Council as well as on some of the activities of the bodies associated with the publishing trade in this country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give a better answer today, but, alas, it appears that Government policy is wreaking its miserable results in that area.
One of the most important aspects for the future of this country, to put it at its very lowest, as well as for the encouragement of trade, is to ensure that the English language continues to extend its supremacy throughout the world. Government measures which injure the sale of books and the activities of the British Council throughout the world in my

opinion represent two most retrograde steps. I hope that even now the Government will reconsider the effects which those measures have had, and I hope that they will consider the representations that have been made by my hon. Friend.
I now turn to the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). They both referred to the attitude of the Government towards two countries in South America. My hon. Friend raised the extremely important question of the danger and disgrace of any projected renewal of arms sales to Chile, if that is indeed contemplated by the Government. It was bad enough for the Government to restore diplomatic relations in the circumstances in which they did. If that were to be followed by a reopening of the arms trade to Chile, we would regard it as a dangerous turn of events which would reflect no credit on the Government or on the reputation of this country in that part of the world. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asked.
The House should be extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West for the way in which he raised the subject of El Salvador. The House and the country have been horrified by the recent events there. I believe that the hon. Gentleman put the case to the House in the best possible manner, and I am sure that he will receive a response from the right hon. Gentleman.
When we were in power, we took steps to halt the arms trade to El Salvador. I believe that was the correct step to take. I hope that the response from the Government will be better than their attitude towards Chile.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) is not present, and perhaps I should not comment in detail on what he said. However, it is necessary to repudiate the attack which he made upon Sir Hugh Greene, who was a most distinguished servant of the BBC and of the country in the task which he performed. We were told by the hon. Gentleman that in recent times, partly as a result of the activities of Sir Hugh Greene, some appalling skits by playwrights who should have been banned were shown on the BBC.
I did not quite catch the names which he mentioned, but I thought that he mentioned Congreve Wycherley, Vanbrugh, Beaumont and Fletcher. I think he also mentioned that William Shakespeare made some attacks on the British Army. If anybody reads what happened to Henry V on the night before Agincourt, as described by William Shakespeare, he will see that, according to the reckonings of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, that was not something that could be tolerated on the BBC at all. Therefore, I hope that the Leader of the House will not be too deeply swayed by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge on these cultural matters. We know that the Leader of the House has great difficulty with his barbarian friends in the Cabinet and that he has perpetual difficulty in preventing them from turning further in the direction of the kind of activities that the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stour-bridge has recommended.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) put one or two questions—not the famous question that he has put on earlier occasions. I am glad to say that he has turned his attention to some other topic and this has been a great improvement. He raised a number of serious matters which should be debated by the House, and I fully support his recommendations.
The first matter that my hon. Friend raised was the appalling and tragic accident in the North Sea. That must mean that we should look afresh at the whole area of safety precautions in the North Sea. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the necessity to distinguish between the sponsoring Department in such cases and the body responsible for health and safety precautions. That was one of the reasons why the last Government set up the Health and Safety Executive; it was precisely to ensure that it should be independent in these respects. In many areas the health and safety of workers in this country has been advanced by the way in which the Health and Safety Commission has gone about its business. However, there are many places, including the North Sea, where the commission has not been able to carry out to the full the work for which it was

instituted. I hope that we shall soon have a general debate on that matter.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian about the necessity for a debate on the Brandt Commission report. I know that we had a debate on a Private Member's motion last week, but I do not regard that as a satisfactory discharge of the question. It is right that hon. Members should raise such questions in private Members' time, but the matter is of such great importance that it should be the subject of a debate for which the Government should provide time. I have no doubt that the Opposition would be prepared to provide some time as well. I know that there are a few Conservative Members who sit below the Gangway who do not think that this topic should be the subject of a major debate. I do not include the right hon. Member for Sid-cup (Mr. Heath), who is not in his place tonight, in that category. I know that there are fine distinctions to be drawn between the right hon. Member and some of his hon. Friends who sit below the Gangway. They belong to the same party, but they try to live that down. None the less, despite the association of the right hon. Member for Sidcup with the question of the Brandt Commission, we still believe that it is a matter of great importance which should be debated in the House.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who has pressed for a debate on London affairs. We hope that that can be arranged. We also believe that in the near future there should be further debates about the North-West and other areas of the country. In the past the Opposition have provided time for debates on particular areas of the country, and we believe that that tradition should be carried further.
My hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) raised the most important question of peace and war. Certainly, I believe that we should have more frequent debates on this supremely important matter. When we return after the recess, we shall have defence debates. Perhaps these have been prevented in the past by the tedious interventions of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer).


He even filibustered this debate, and I am sure that he will receive a severe reprimand from his Whips. Every minute of that reprimand will be deserved. When the hon. Member protested that my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and Salford, East were not entitled to raise these matters, it was nothing short of a piece of impudence on his part. Obviously these matters are of supreme importance for the future, not only of East Anglia but of the whole country. I hope that when the House returns we shall treat these topics in the serious way that they deserve.
There is one other aspect of this motion to which no reference has been made so far. The motion refers not only to the period of the Easter Recess but to the May Day holiday, for which provision is made. I am glad to see that the Government have now fully accepted the proposition that was made by the last Government that we should have a proper May Day holiday every year. We had a few objections previously from some of the more neolithic Members on the Conservative Benches who were apparently unaware of this country's history. If they probed more deeply, they would understand that there is a great tradition in this country for celebrating May Day. Some of us think that it should always be celebrated on 1 May, but nevertheless we have made some progress and I am glad that the Government have accepted the proposition.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thought that right hon. Member would raise this matter, so I waited until he did. When he brought in the May Day bank holiday, was he aware that it would not actually fall on May Day until 1989? Would we not be well advised to use the intervening years to move the holiday to the Monday on or before I May so that those who want to keep William Shakespeare on television and in other places can use the holiday for that purpose?

Mr. Foot: If there is any suggestion about altering the date, we would certainly be prepared to look at it. When we were in Government, we looked carefully at the proposition of always having a holiday on 1 May. Many of my hon. Friends, for many excellent traditional reasons, wanted to do that and I would still prefer that arrangement. I know

that there have been objections from the CBI, which has put forward some fatuous financial arguments. We did not quite overcome those arguments when we were in power. At any rate, I am glad to see that the Government accept the establishment of the May Day holiday, and when Conservative Members fail to divide the House on the motion tonight they will be showing their acceptance of that principle.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I can at least agree with one point that was made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot). He said that the House had been wise enough not to abolish this debate. It is clear from the number of hon. Members who have spoken tonight—about 30 have taken part—that there is a demand for this debate. The House rejected the recommendation of the Procedure Committee to abolish this debate in the interests of efficiency. I am delighted that the House has resisted that pressure.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that it appears that some pressure was being brought on me to limit the length of my remarks. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have been quite robust in resisting that. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, it was St. Patrick who preached for three days and three nights without ceasing. That is an excellent example, which I shall emulate in moderation. After all, Lloyd George's Budget speech took four and a half hours. That makes the recent speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer seem absurdly short.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to May Day and the May bank holiday. He wanted that holiday to take place on 1 May. He advised us to "probe a little deeper". I suggest that he should probe a little deeper. He will find, if he studies our traditions, that that is also a famous saint's day, that of St. Joseph. That day was celebrated long before Karl Marx had been heard of. We are delighted to have his support on this issue.
About 30 hon. Members have spoken in the debate. It is, of necessity, impossible to reply fully to all: hon. Members.


I shall refer all the points to those of my right hon. Friends who hold direct responsibility for them. However, I shall endeavour to answer the points raised by all those hon. Members who are still in the Chamber. Alas, some hon. Members have faded away as the day has progressed. I regret that. If one raises a point, one should remain to hear the answer—inadequate as it may be. I shall not go on for too long about that. It is like denouncing those who have come to church for the empty pews. The only effect is to empty the pews yet further.
I shall comment briefly on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale concerning my position in the Cabinet. I suppose that it was kindly meant when he said that I was the only civilised person in a Cabinet of barbarians. May I say the same to him? He is not exactly typical of the Shadow Cabinet. When I look at him, I think of an orchid among a field of turnips. He has an exotic quality, a little frayed perhaps, but definitely not typical of the attitude of his colleagues to the arts. If the Cabinet is so barbarian, it is remarkable that we have managed to give a record grant of £70 million to the Arts Council. That represents a 20 per cent. increase on the amount given by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman and a general increase in the arts grant of 18½ per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman must have a guilty conscience. His Administration excluded the most civilised person in the Labour Party. There he is, the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who is listening to the debate.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Only a barbarian Government would have excluded the hon. Gentleman for so long from their counsels.

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am paying the hon. Gentleman a tribute. He should let me finish. Of Labour Members, he knows most about the arts and has done the most for them. He was excluded from office for many years. It is a measure of the degree of their desperation, resulting from the trauma of defeat,

that at long last the Opposition have included him in the Shadow Administration.

Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's kind encornium. However, I appeal to him to desist from giving me publicly such a kiss of death.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Nasty.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not nasty. It is comparatively nice if one considers some of the things that the hon. Gentleman has said about me. I assure him that that tribute was not made purely for polemic purposes aimed against the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. It was a genuine trouble. The hon. Member has done a great deal for the arts. I trust that that will be recognised even more fully by the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will be similarly recognised for his work on procedure.
The first contribution was made by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). He rightly raised the grave question of the violence at Neasden Underground station that occurred earlier in March. I assure him in general terms that the Government attach the highest priority to the preservation of civil peace under the law. That is why we have taken steps to strengthen the police through increases in their pay. We believe that the strengthening of the police is the basic answer to crimes of violence. We must reduce the chances, that are so high, of getting away with crimes of violence. Unfortunately, that chance has increased to such a degree that the deterrent effect of punishment has been greatly reduced.
We also intend to give further urgent consideration to the specific issue of violence on public transport. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Transport are soon to hold a working conference on the subject, to which a wide range of interested organisations will be invited. They will consider in detail the nature of the problem and ways of controlling it, with particular reference to what more can be done.
The hon. Gentleman was right to use this opportunity to raise such an important question. While it is of constituency interest, it is also of interest to other hon. Members.


My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) raised a question about the re-employment of officers by the Congleton district council. He expressed concern. I understand that the two officers to whom my hon. Friend referred are able to draw a full local government pension only while continuing to be employed in local government, because they were both local government employees on 1 April 1939. They opted to remain subject to the original Local Government and other Officers' Superannuation Act 1922 rather than the 1937 Act which came into force on that day. The 1937 Act introduced considerable improvements. Most of those who were able to would have opted to be covered by it. However, it contained a provision to the effect that if an officer retired and was re-employed his income from his pension and his new salary should not exceed his former salary. That provision was not included in the 1922 Act.
The decision to offer these officers reemployment was a matter for the Congleton district council. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services has reviewed the position. He has given me no reason to believe that he thinks that this is a desirable situation. However, the law is as I have said. This is the first case of its kind that has come to the attention of the Department. My right hon. Friend would very much regret it if there were further cases of this type.
With regard to textiles, the Government accept the industry's continuing need for protection against low-cost imports. About 95 per cent. of our imports from low-cost sources are already subject to actual or potential restraints. Their share of our market is being held to around 12 per cent. under the present range of import restrictions, centring on those negotiated with supplying countries under the multi-fibre arrangement.
Secondly, with regard to imports from developed countries, the basis of Government policy is free but fair trade. If convincing evidence is provided, the Government can act against such practices as dumping, and we shall act if evidence is produced on dumping, subsidies or false declarations of origin, which cause injury to the industry.
Regarding abuses of the import regime, the Government are determined to implement the present import regulation effectively. We do not allow quotas to be exceeded, and when significant quantities of quota goods enter the United Kingdom via other EEC member States we ask the Commission to suspend the free circulation rules.
The Government are vigilant, and we are grateful to my hon. Friend for once again drawing our attention to these matters.
I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to look into the question of the physiotherapists. It is not the Government's intention to make extensive use of the Clegg Commission, but my hon. Friend must await policy developments.
I turn to the important point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who, with his usual courtesy and puctiliousness with regard to the procedures of this House, is in his place. I have consulted my right hon. Friend, and the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is a point of expertise. Prescribed amounts used to determine the rate of family income supplement were increased twice in 1979. The second uprating exercise had to be undertaken at short notice, and in Northern Ireland trained staff had to be diverted from their normal assessment work. The right hon. Gentleman is right that that, compounded by the significant increase in the number of persons claiming benefit, led to delays in dealing with cases. Temporary staff have been appointed to deal with the situation. Unfortunately, it has not yet been possible to make quick inroads into the backlog, partly because of the need to train additional staff, but I am assured that every effort is being made to clear it as quickly as possible.
I am happy to be able to inform the right hon. Gentleman that the backlog has been reduced from 407 cases to 852, and nearly 300 claims are being received every week. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will to some extent be reassured by that. He is quite right on the question of principle. We are doing our best to see whether the situation can be improved in practice.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If I start giving way, other hon. Members will not have the opportunity to have their questions answered.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I believe that there was a misreading by the right hon. Gentleman, because he appeared to read a larger number as smaller than a smaller number.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry. It is my enunciation that it at fault and not my figures. The figure was 1,407 and it was reduced to 852. That should reconcile any apparent discrepancy.
Turning to what my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) said about fees for building control, I do not believe that it is possible to have a debate now, and the scheme has to go ahead. It implements Government policy, because it enables local authorities to recover income assumed in assessing rate support grant. We believe that it will enhance the status of building control and could lead to a better relationship between building inspectors and developers. Given common sense, the scheme will be simple to operate, especially for developers with experience of the system in inner London.
There was widespread consultation. Details of the scheme were circulated four and a half months ago, on 14 November 1979.
With regard to my hon. Friend's constituent, the matter has been looked into and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has corresponded with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend was advised on 1 April that the Minister had agreed to the issue of a temporary travel document to enable his constituent to travel in May, on the understanding that he continues with his efforts to obtain a passport. If there are further questions on the matter, they should be pursued directly with the Minister.
With regard to British Gypsum, Leicestershire county council refused its application for planning permission for a gypsum mine and plaster board factory at Barrow-on-Soar. A public inquiry was set up, and the inspector recommended that planning permission be refused. The parties, however, were invited to submit further representations by 24 March to the Department of the Environment. These are being considered, and the Sec-

retary of State will give his decisions as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who is not at present in the Chamber, raised the question of defence, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) in the nuclear context. The hon. Member for Keighley got into a dispute with my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer), who is in his place. I do not want to get involved in that dispute if I can possibly avoid it.

Mr. Rooker: It is a national issue.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The dispute between my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Keighley is of interest but hardly a national issue. Both Members are very distinguished, but we must have some sense of proportion. They gave each other as good as they got.
Turning to the issue of nuclear weapons, there will be an opportunity to discuss these matters in the context of the defence White Paper. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made clear, he will make a statement to the House as soon as possible as to where in the United Kingdom the ground-launched cruise missiles will be sited. He is still having discussions with the United States authorities, and no decisions have been taken.
The position on the control of cruise missiles was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 December and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army in the debate on 24 January. Let me repeat what was said at that time. The understanding relating to the use by the United States of certain bases in the United Kingdom has often been referred to in the House, was first reached between Mr. Attlee and President Truman in 1951, and was confirmed in 1952 by Mr. Churchill and Mr. Truman. The understanding, which continues to apply today, provides that the use of these bases in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. I hope that that


will be of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter on numerous occasions. He is entitled to do so. Whatever our views on defence may be—and I do not share the hon. Gentleman's views—we should be aware of the terrible risks that we are running in an age dominated by nuclear weapons. We should be aware of the danger of proliferation. I happen to believe that the way forward is by multilateral and agreed disarmament.
Whatever our views on that may be, we should be increasingly aware of the dangers that every nation is being put in by the nuclear race. It is right that these matters should be raised in the House at regular intervals.
I turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery). He was concerned about the unfair system of rates. In principle, I agree with him that the rates system is unfair. It is a tax that is levied on a minority for benefits for the majority. There is no getting away from that. However, we have had that system for a long time, and the Government have made it plain that their first priority is the reduction of the weight of taxation rather than the reform of the rating system. We have not given up the idea of that as a long-term aim of reform.
With regard to water service charges, the Government have no plans to introduce a rebate system for domestic consumers. All water authorities provide facilities to allow bills to be paid by instalments. In addition, help is available through the supplementary benefits system.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of retail outlets used by oil companies. It is for the oil companies themselves to decide with whom they do business. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy informed the House on 29 October and subsequently, we have obtained assurances from the major oil companies which safeguard our petrol supplies to rural areas and provide the best opportunity for retailers to remain in business. There is evidence that many retailers no longer supplied by the major companies have continued to trade successfully with supplies obtained from other sources. The matter is being kept

under review by the Department of Energy.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) raised the question of Inmos. The National Enterprise Board has sought the approval of Ministers for a further £25 million funding for that project. The company has sought the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry for an industrial development certificate for a production unit at Bristol. It is a complex issue which is currently under consideration. My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as a decision is reached.
I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stour-bridge (Mr. Stokes), who spoke with his customary candour, clarity and vigour. I do not wish to intervene in the debate on the rival merits of Lord Reith and Sir Hugh Carleton Greene. No doubt they both have their champions and their detractors.
My hon. Friend was acting well within his rights as a Member of the House in putting forward certain criticisms of the British Broadcasting Corporation. It would not be right for me, as a Minister, to express either agreement or disagreement with those animadversions on the BBC. It is a ministerial responsibility which rests with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He is responsible for broadcasting authorities. I may have my personal view, as he has, but we have to be careful about what we say because of the ministerial responsibility involved.
Certainly it is good and healthy that hon. Members should express their views on the BBC in no uncertain terms. Those views are appreciated by the governors of the BBC. They may well listen to those views and, who knows, they may eventually percolate down to producer level. Let us hope that that is so.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) referred to unemployment, especially in Yorkshire and Humberside. We believe that it is crucial to tackle the root causes of rising unemployment. One of the main causes is the world recession. There has been an upward surge in oil prices. These are factors that are not within the Government's control. The


unemployment problem has been endemic for some time. It is only by the creation of jobs that are economically based that the problem can be tackled in the long term. However, the Government can create conditions which will enable United Kingdom firms to compete successfully in world markets and so create a genuine demand for labour.
Hon. Members have referred to pollution. The Government intend to implement part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, but no timetable has yet been decided, nor can it be decided until we have better information about expenditure implications. These are being examined and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
A further topic raised was that of social service cutbacks, especially in terms of area health authorities. About £1,300 million is spent on personal social services by local authorities, which in England and Wales were asked to reduce current expenditure on their services as a whole in 1979–80 by 1½ per cent. below the 1978–79 level and by a further 1 per cent. in 1980–81. I think that everyone deplores social service cuts, but until we have a more productive and wealth-producing economy the cutbacks are, unfortunately, inevitable.
BSC (Chemicals) Ltd. is a profitable company. It is making coal tar chemicals and various related products. It is among the non-steel-making assets that the corporation is considering selling to help to overcome its serious financial problems. The disposal of this asset is a matter for the corporation and not one for the Government.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) referred to the Farnham Park rehabilitation centre. I cannot add to the parliamentary answer that was given by Lord Cullen on 31 March—namely, that the proposal to close the centre is currently the subject of public consultation locally in accordance with the normal procedures. It would be inappropriate for me to make a statement while the consultations are taking place. I am sure that the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend in the debate will have been noted in his constituency and that the arguments that he advanced will be taken fully into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) spoke about the postal services, and especially the report on London postal services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will soon be discussing the report with the chairman of the Post Office, and he will be making a statement in due course.
I agree that a debate on the British Leyland corporate plan would be desirable. I hope to arrange such a debate not long after the Session resumes. I did not promise an early debate. I have checked the various remarks that have been made and it seems that a time limit was not given. I reassert my undertaking that there will be a debate on that corporate plan. In deference to my hon. Friend, I shall try to find time for a debate as soon as possible.
With regard to the Procedure Committee and the important issue of the review of the Estimates, which my hon. Friend also raised, I have considerable sympathy with the point that was made about the Supplementary Estimates and the amount of money that goes through on the nod in the House. It is not satisfactory that that procedure should continue when it is historically and constitutionally the first function of the House to grant Supply and to survey and control it. The relevant Select Committees, particularly the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, can make a considerable contribution to the question —rather more than my hon. Friend allowed.
With regard to appointing a new Procedure Committee, we have still not disposed of the remainder of the recommendations of the present Committee's major report on procedure. I hope to make further progress with that before appointing a new Procedure Committee. However, if an urgent need is shown for a new Committee, we can review the position.
The sale of arms to Chile—a point raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—is an important issue at the present time. As he knows, there has been an embargo on the sale of arms to Chile, and I assure him that there are no plans to lift that embargo at the moment. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
I turn now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who was concerned about delays in trials. That has been due partly to the increase in serious crime and the consequent number and length of trials. We are doing all we can to reduce the delays. An increasing number of judges are being recruited, and a substantial building programme is being carried out to provide additional court rooms, particularly in London. As a result of those measures, there are signs of improvement. Outside London, in four out of five provincial circuits, 50 per cent. of all defendants, including those on bail in the Crown courts, come to trial within eight weeks of committal. In London and the South-East—about which my hon. Friend is particularly concerned —the position is still bad. To reduce the backlog, special arrangements have been made this year by which over 50 judges from circuits outside the South-East have volunteered to sit in London for a certain length of time.
I turn now to the variety of topics that were raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). He raised the subject of kidney patients. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we fully support the cooperation between voluntary bodies and the National Health Service, and the generous offer from the British Kidney Patients' Association is an excellent example. However, the original suggestions would have entailed the provision of considerable supporting National Health Service funds, and the health authorities were bound to consider the implications of that on their other services. I understand that discussions are still proceeding with the authorities on possible ways of using the money to increase services for kidney patients, and we hope that they will lead to a satisfactory outcome.
With regard to the question of chemical feedstock and the related issue of price advantage, it is doubtful whether the price advantage enjoyed by the United States chemical and synthetic textile industries, through access to cheap feedstock, counts as a subsidy under the GATT code on subsidies. However, we have taken action to protect ourselves against the growth of imports from the United States of certain synthetic textiles, and we shall continue to monitor carefully the imports of other products which benefit from the feedstock price advantage. There is no

evidence yet that the imports of these products are causing damage to the United Kingdom industry.
Careful consideration of the many and varied recommendations in the report of the Burgoyne committee on offshore safety is necessary, not least in regard to the aspects involving the machinery of government. Therefore, I believe that a debate at this stage would be premature, but ray right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has given me an undertaking that when the recommendations have been fully examined he will, later in the year, inform the House of his proposals. That would be an appropriate time for a debate.

Mr. Dalyell: Are we not to debate Burgoyne until later in the year—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has not given way.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas I think that I made it clear that we should debate the report later in the year. I cannot go further than to give that undertaking. I am sorry if it does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but there are complicated matters that must be reviewed. The work is going on.

I turn to the Brandt Commission report, a most important report on a vital problem facing the world. I am delighted that the House had an opportunity to discuss that significant report and to hear the Government's views in the debate on 28 March, on a motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). I congratulate him on raising that important subject, so giving the House an opportunity to debate it. There was also a debate on the subject in another place on 12 March. In those circumstances, I cannot promise a further early debate.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Disgraceful.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not disgraceful; it is a matter of the timetable and the fact that we have just had a debate. I do not rule out another debate, but I cannot promise it at an early date. We have had a five-hour debate, but it is a vital problem and the House should have an opportunity to discuss it again in due course. Let us wait for further views on the report to come forward in


the light of the discussion that is going on in the House and elsewhere.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will pursue the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) raised about the construction industry. His point about the water rates has already been dealt with in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale.
With regard to foreign policy, our attitude to the State of Israel and the dispute in the Middle East—matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)—the Government's objective is a comprehensive and lasting Middle East peace settlement guaranteeing a secure future for both Israelis and Palestinians. We support all constructive efforts to this end and hope that current negotiations on the future of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will soon make progress. We are ready to make a constructive contribution, together with our European partners, if that is likely to be helpful. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in a statement on 20 March the Government's attitude to contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm what she said then.
I turn to the remarks about the Civil List made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman is not strictly my "hon. Friend", but we are old sparring partners on this subject. I am delighted that chance has brought us together again on a subject on which we hold diametrically opposed views. Little has changed over the years. I am very familiar with much of the hon. Gentleman's speech. We heard again the same accusations as he has made over the years against the institution of the monarchy and its expenditure. There was only one new approach—over Gatcombe Park, Princess Anne's house. I could sum up his speech by asking: should one buy a secondhand house from Lord Butler? That seemed to be the gravamen—

Mr. William Hamilton: That is a good question.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is a good question. I think that I put it rather more

graphically than did the hon. Gentleman, but it is a rhetorical question and I do not propose to answer it.
I am alarmed about one thing regarding the hon. Gentleman. He is becoming much milder in his strictures on the Royal Family. He seems to be mellowing. He is mellowing with age. I have heard him say much worse things about Princess Margaret than he said in the debate today. Perhaps he has been impressed by the article in The Sunday Times, which showed in that interesting table, to which I may refer as the productivity table of princesses, that Princess Anne came out top with 121 engagements, and second amongst the princesses came Princess Margaret with 113. I remind the hon. Gentleman that those bare figures do not give a clear or fair indication of the amount of work involved. One engagement in that list may involve between 10 and 20 other engagements. That gives a much fairer picture of the degree of activity undertaken by members of the Royal Family.
The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that we would see this problem of the Civil List in perspective. I ask him to follow his own precept. Let him look at the Civil List, which amounts to £3 million-plus, in the context of the revenue from the Crown Estates which were surrendered, which amounts to over £9 million. Of that, £3 million has, as it were, been restored in the Civil List. I think that that is quite a good bargain for the taxpayer.
I should point out that the cash limits that are applied to the Royal Household are the same as those that are applied to Government Departments. I further point out that this concerns the salaries of the people employed by the Queen and members of the Royal Family. That is the vast bulk of the expenditure involved in the Civil List.
The evidence given by the Civil Service unions to the Select Committee on this subject indicated that it would meet with their very strong disapproval if comparable rates of pay were not kept up in the Royal service. They did not wish people to work for the Queen or other members of her family at reduced rates for the honour of so doing.
I should also point out to the hon. Gentleman that the private lives of various members of the Royal Family and


what they do are financed totally out of their own income and have nothing to do with the Civil List or moneys voted by the House. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I do not share it. There is something to be said for a splendid monarchy; there is something to be said for a republic; but for a mean monarchy there is nothing whatsoever to be said.
I turn now to the next contribution. It is no use the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) sighing like that. He has not been present. I do not know where he has been. He has been to the Shadow Cabinet. No wonder he is sighing. It is a reasonable thing to do. It is a most exhausting process. It is even more exhausting than sitting here. But those of us who have been here for the last four or five hours, as I have, are entitled to conclude our debate in peace, uninterrupted by the hon. Gentleman's sighs.
I turn away from the sighing, and I notice the Patronage Secretary. I am caught in a crossfire of sighs. Nevertheless, I shall continue to do my duty to the House. I am Leader of the House, and I shall answer the questions that have been raised by hon. Members.
I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who is assiduous in his attendance at these debates. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to look urgently into the situation that the hon. Gentleman has revealed at the Birmingham assay office. That is a national asset, and we should be concerned about it.
I am less sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman said about the Rossminster tax case. He was less than fair in that. He defended his reputation with great vigour when he was under attack. I do not reproach him for that. He is entitled to do so. However, he must accept that the Revenue is an independent department. On the question of investigations, it does not act on the decisions of Ministers. It makes its own decisions. Previous connections of a person in a private capacity before he becomes a Minister are a matter for that period. They are not relevant to a ministerial career or to actions taken when in office. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) that we are extremely concerned about the situation in E1 Salvador. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend on his visit to that country on behalf of the British Council of Churches. Of course, the Government deplore the wicked murder of the archbishop. In the death of that man we have lost not only a great Christian champion but a great champion of human rights for all people. The crime was utterly deplorable and we have made clear our condemnation of it. I have drawn my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. I assure him that we are doing all that we can to see that there is a peaceful solution to the problems facing that country and to protect British nationals in E1 Salvador. The Government condemn that wicked crime utterly and without reservation.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) wanted a debate on energy, and I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have sympathy with his wish for a debate on the affairs of the North-West region. We have had many debates in this Session on regional affairs. I hope to be able to arrange, in the reasonably near future, a debate on the North-West, because that region faces particular problems that need to be examined. The hon. Member's point about pensions was heard by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, and he will take the matter up.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) raised the question of GLC housing transfers. Orders transferring some 125,000 dwellings and the associated staff to the boroughs and districts that have requested them take effect as from Tuesday 1 April 1980. We think that this is a valuable step towards transferring the management of housing to the local level, with consequent benefits for tenants.
The hon. Member, with others, asked about the future of the GLC's remaining 100,000 houses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment does not propose to take any initiatives to transfer those. If he receives a unilateral request for transfer, he will have to consider it and consult the parties.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) raised a most important question about the British Council, which was referred to also by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I agree that the work of the council is vital to the future influence of Britain. Power in the nineteenth century sense has passed from us, but influence has not. I therefore fully support the work of the British Council and pay tribute to what it has done.
Unfortunately, we cannot afford for the British Council the level of support that other countries can afford for their councils. That is because they have a higher standard of living and higher productivity and more efficient industry. Certain reductions have had to be made but these amount to less than 10 per cent. of the council's total turnover. Nevertheless, I regret that the reduction has had to be made. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he draws attention to the vital nature of the work that the council does. When we have a better economic situation, I trust that we shall be able to restore the situation to levels more acceptable to the hon. Gentleman.
I shall raise with my right hon. Friend the matter to which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) referred.
I am grateful to the House for the patience with which hon. Members have borne with these answers. I make no apology for them. If hon. Members raise a question that they consider important, they have a right to a reply. The hon. Member for Bedwellty would be the first to criticise me if I attempted to skimp this task. I do not intend to do that in this debate or in any subsequent similar debate.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I love the right hon. Gentleman when he is angry.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not at all angry. The hon. Gentleman should see me angry. He would get a shock. I am my good-humoured and equable self, despite the continued barrage of sighs coming from the exhausted member of the Shadow Cabinet. The House will be relieved to hear that this debate also covers the ill-fated May Day bank holiday. It will not be necessary to have a further debate before that day. I look forward, however, to answering hon. Members' questions on the debate on the motion for the Whitsun Adjournment.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising tomorrow do adjourn till Monday 14th April and at its rising on Friday 2nd May do adjourn till Tuesday 6th May.

SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

Mr. John Sever: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the smoking of tobacco products in the auditoria of cinemas and theatres during performances.
I resist the encouragement of hon. Members to make my Ten-Minute Bill speech last at least a quarter of an hour. I say at once that the Bill allows those attending cinemas and theatres who wish to smoke to do so during intervals, intermissions and other breaks in performances in parts of the cinema and theatre other than the auditoria.
The majority of British adults are nonsmokers. The Bill is designed to protect the majority in our community from the ill winds that blow across them from smokers in cinemas and theatres. I have been asked by a number of hon. Members whether I consider that the Bill should have been extended to cover other areas where smoking can cause discomfort and annoyance to others. I thought that it was advisable to ask the House to agree to accept the principle that smoking is particularly annoying to people who find themselves in relatively confined spaces for a relatively long time. I regard the inconvenience and irritation caused to smokers and non-smokers alike in the confined auditoria of cinemas and theatres for up to three and a half hours as specific annoyances, and I hope that the House will agree with that view.
I have received a number of letters and messages from those who have seen public references to the Bill. All except one agree with what is proposed in the Bill. A number of members of the public have written indicating that they think that smoking should be banned in many public places, such as public transport, restaurants and cafes.
Evidence that has recently been produced indicates that Britain has the highest rate of lung cancer in the world and that Britain is among the countries with the highest number of sufferers from the other three killers—coronary heart disease, bronchitis and emphysema. I think that when we are presented with evidence of that magnitude we should do whatever we can to encourage those who are trying to draw to the attention of the

public the dangers of smoking and the dangers that are caused, to a limited extent, to non-smokers by those who smoke.
The World Health Organisation expert committee report on smoking control, "Controlling the Smoking Epidemic", in its recommendations addressed to all countries last year, said:
Non-smoking should be regarded as the normal social behaviour and that all action which can promote the development of this attitude be taken.
I think that the House would be regarded as having acted wisely in response to that recommendation if it were to agree to this measure.
I should like to refer to a recent report published in the New England Journal of Medicine of 27 March this year. That report referred to the problems of smoking in public places, and particularly to what is known as "passive smoking". Many of the chemical substances contained in tobacco smoke have marked irritant properties that cause nose, throat and eye irritation. This is particularly unpleasant when sitting in a confined space such as a theatre or a cinema.
Even for those in relatively good health, cigarette smoke is an irritant. For those who are in poor health —particularly those with bronchial complaints—the presence of considerable amounts of smoke in the atmosphere they breathe, possibly for two or three hours, is unsatisfactory. That is a problem on which I believe the House should comment.
In my view, we should do whatever we can to make the atmosphere in cinemas, theatres and other public places as pleasant and as fresh as possible. The removal of smoke pollutants from that atmosphere would help enormously. I am tempted to draw the attention of the House to all the other areas where I believe a degree of control would be helpful. I have been accused by those who smoke of proposing some sort of infringement of their civil rights and their liberty to smoke. Having referred to the fact that the majority of the adult population are non-smokers, I think that those who smoke should have proper regard for the feelings of the majority and curtail their anti-social behaviour accordingly.
There are a number of matters that have come to the attention of those who follow the effects of smoking, among them recent


surveys that have indicated quite clearly that, among smokers and non-smokers alike, a majority in the community are in favour of further restrictions in order to improve the general health of the community. For those reasons, I believe that the Bill should have support.
In conclusion, I thank ASH—Action Campaign on Smoking and Health—for the helpful advice and support it has given to me. I thank also my parliamentary colleagues, of all parties, who are members of the parliamentary group that supports ASH for the help they have given to me. I have pleasure, therefore, in seeking the recommendation of the House for the measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Sever, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mrs. Sheila Faith, Mr. D. E. Thomas, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Gerald Kaufman and Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES (PROHIBITION)

Mr. John Sever accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the smoking of tobacco products in the auditoria of cinemas and theatres during performances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Order of the House [29th January] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion not later than at the expiration 5 of the period of four hours beginning with the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments.

2. If at the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph 1(1) above the proceedings 10 on Consideration of Lords Amendments have not been completed, then, for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion 15 made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b)Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has been selected. Copies are in the Vote Office.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: We are faced with yet another timetable motion on the Education (No. 2) Bill. It would be unseemly, if not a dereliction of the Opposition's duty, if we did not refer to the need for a deliberate and thorough debate on the issues which have been raised yet again in the House of Lords amendments. Since the Bill started its journey in November, it has not gained any friends. Indeed, it has lost some of the friends that it had at the beginning.
We regard gleefully the decisions made in the other place. In order to abridge my comments later, I must say that although the House of Lords decision on clause 23 is welcome in the House and in rural areas by parents of children who attend denominational schools, one swallow does not make a summer. One welcome and progressive vote by the House of Lords does not make it a necessary part of our democracy. I hope that we shall not desert the substance of tonight's debate or abandon any proposals for the reform of the British constitution through the abolition of the House of Lords. That remains firmly on my agenda.
The Government hoped that the Bill would have received Royal Assent before today. The Bill had a hasty delivery. It

was one of the earliest to be debated on Second Reading this Session after we returned from the Summer Recess. We had a thorough but insufficiently long Committee stage. Two days were spent on Report and the Bill went to the House of Lords. In spite of the claims of my noble Friends, they failed to gain extra time for debate. As a result, not because of delaying tactics by the Opposition but because of the Bill's substance and the requirement for thorough discussion, whole areas failed to receive the scrutiny which they deserve. That is regrettable.
Responsible parliamentarians are aware of the facts of life involved in having a Government with a substantial majority. We acknowledge that the Government have the power and the right to secure their business. That is the essence of Parliament and its hallowed traditions. The Government had an excuse for trying to press the Education (No. 2) Bill through Parliament provided that they were trying to enact a Bill to permit the operation of their major and destructive reduction in expenditure for local education authorities.
Throughout the time the Bill was in the House and the other place, we claimed that the Government's haste was not only unseemly but unnecessary, and, because it was unnecessary and deliberate, that it was a conscious attempt to prevent the House from giving the kind of attention to the complex parts of the Bill that was required and justified. "That is not so", said the Government. "We are simply


undertaking the conduct of business in a way that will afford debate and consideration of the Bill."
Now we find in The Times Educational Supplement of last Friday that the Department of Education and Science has informed those who wished to ask that the implementation of important parts of this Bill cannot occur for another 18 months. We are also informed in that paper that
Although the Bill will become an Act after the beginning of the new financial year—the Government's original deadline—this will not matter in practice. Local authorities are not planning to use their new discretion to charge for school meals and milk until the beginning of next term anyway.
So, despite the deadline that was set originally which dictated the progress of the Bill through the House, together with the sittings motions that the Government members on the Committee voted for and the guillotine motion that we debated a month or so ago, we have a bland and calm announcement that all that haste was unnecessary because some further weeks must elapse before the implementation of some parts of the Bill and a year and a half can be expected to elapse before the implementation of another part of the Bill.
Therefore, there was no justification for the kind of rush that has characterised the passage of the Bill through the House, with the Government using their majority to secure their business. Indeed, only that rush can explain the extraordinary circumstance revealed in the latest edition of the Bill which eventually emerged from the House of Lords. It will be seen that, while the Government accepted the will of the other place—and, indeed, did not even bother to press clause 23 or clause 25—we find in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill as printed the following proposition:
Relaxation of the present restrictions on the powers of local education authorities to charge for providing home to school transport (clauses 23 and 25) is expected to lead to a reduction in annual rate of net public expenditure for this purpose of at least £30 million in England and Wales and £2 million in Scotland.
I wonder whether the Government are taking their responsibilities seriously or whether, in their haste, they are prepared to commit that kind of inefficiency.
I will say little about the changes that have come about which directly affect the education system and the Bill since

we last debated the matter on Report and Third Reading, because we are anxious to move on and give the maximum possible time to consideration of the Lord's amendments and the amendments tabled by the Opposition and members of the Liberal Party. However, since those previous debates, we have seen a new public expenditure White Paper proposing cuts of nearly £1,000 million over the next few years on education. That will have a major effect on the implementation of the Bill. We have also seen the leak of the findings of the National Children's Bureau which would have had a major effect in supplementing the information available to hon. Members, and those interested outside the House, had they been published during the passage of the Bill, especially as regards clause 17, which deals with the assisted places scheme.
The assisted places scheme is based on the assumption that the non-selective maintained school system is incapable of meeting the needs of children of above-average ability. That proposition has been shot to pieces, as we understand it, by the National Children's Bureau, and I should have thought that the Secretary of State would have taken it upon himself to make those details available to the general public during the course of the months of debate on the Bill.
Finally, tonight we shall deliberate further on the public expenditure White Paper. We shall talk about cuts and the effect of those cuts on the implementation of the Bill and the way in which, in an arbitrary and varied fashion, those cuts will directly affect those affected by the various clauses of the Bill.
However, as with the annual conferences of the teachers' unions, this debate has taken place before the most crucial decision in this educational year has been made apparent to the public. I refer to the findings of the Clegg Commission. In that sense, we are debating these matters in the same way in which they will be debated at teachers' conferences this weekend, and in the same way in which they have already been debated at teachers' conferences in recent weeks.
This is an open-ended discussion which is without conclusion. It is taking place without the fullest information and without the most crucial and determining


figure being made available—the recommendations that will be made by Professor Clegg about teachers' pay and conditions of service.
I wonder at the Secretary of State not trying to expedite the publication of the Clegg Commission report, so that it can either be debated in this House or, more importantly, so that the information it contains is made available to the teachers' conferences which will take place this weekend.
We have considered the Bill. We should like to give it mote consideration. We shall try to make up for some of the deficiencies of time by discussing some of those matters this evening. I hope that we can proceed speedily to undertake that task.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, in line 18, to leave out from "Question" to end and to add:
on each remaining Lords amendment, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I shall explain the effect of the amendment in a moment. However, I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing us to discuss this matter, thus ensuring that this feature of the timetable motion gets proper consideration.
The House of Lords spent about a fortnight of long, and in some cases all-night, sittings on the Bill. It did a very good job, both in detail and on a major principle. This House and people in constituencies such as mine have every reason to be grateful to their Lordships for what they did. We are now discussing how much time we should spend discussing the work that they have done.
That ought not to take us very long. It is reasonable that a limited amount of time should be set aside for a timetable motion of this kind. However, tonight we are dealing with a timetable motion the like of which I have never seen before. From all the inquiries that I have made of the Officers of the House, it seems that they have never seen the like of it before either.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has tabled another amendment relating to one of the points in the motion. I should like to refer to two other points, because I believe that these

are disgraceful proceedings, which may be taken as a precedent on future occasions. In my opinion, this will do great harm to the House and to the way in which it discusses Bills.
My amendment is designed to deal with that problem. When the guillotine falls at the end of the four-hour period that has been allotted for discussion, what will we do with the amendments to which the Lords devoted so much time and attention in so many long sittings? The ones which are left, and which have not been debated, will be taken en bloc, and one motion will be put to deal with them.
According to the motion,
Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
It is not beyond the bounds of human reasoning that there may be some amendments with which we agree and some with which we disagree. We are rather fortunate that the Lords have done an excellent job on the Bill. It is pretty hard to find anything with which to disagree, except in respect of Government amendments which have been inserted and which we think we can improve, indeed, attempts have been made to do precisely that.
It is ludicrous to put on the Order Paper a motion that prevents hon. Members from distinguishing between the amendments passed in another place. It is equally ludicrous to vote on them en bloc. That is an insult to the proceedings that have taken place in another place. Frankly, if the other place dealt with the Bill in the same way as we propose to do. I am sure that the House would have some strong criticisms to make. If the other place decided to take the whole Bill en bloc and had only one vote—irrespective of whether there were individual items with which it agreed or disagreed—those proceedings would be regarded by hon. Members as ludicrous. That is what we are proposing to do with the amendments that they have pressed. If we make a practice of this, we are entering dangerous territory.
My amendment enables us to single out the odd case where we may wish to take a different view of an amendment that we have not discussed. Why should the Government put hon. Members in a


position of voting for a block of amendments, some of which they agree with and some of which they do not? That is a ludicrous way of proceeding, and we should not give the Government the opportunity to continue with it. I hope that my amendment will gain widespread support.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West beat me to it by putting an amendment on the Order Paper about an even more appalling feature of this timetable motion. I do not think that there is a precedent for this motion. If there is, perhaps the Government will tell us. In effect, they are saying that any time that we spend discussing the timetable motion will automatically be deducted from the time that we have left to discuss the amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down".] Conservative Members are telling me to sit down. I thought they were elected to this place to defend parliamentary democracy and to ensure that we have an opportunity to discuss these matters properly. It seems reasonable that our Standing Orders should set aside a fixed and limited period to discuss the timetable motion, but that is not what we have here.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The hon. Member is totally wrong and totally misguided. By putting the motion in this way, we allow four hours from the moment that the debate on the timetable motion begins. Since the timetable motion itself is limited to one hour, that means that the House can have anything from three to four hours, depending on how long it chooses to spend on the timetable motion. Had I put the motion down the other way and merely allowed the timetable motion plus three hours, the hon. Member would not have had the advantage of possibly having longer on the debate on the amendments.

Mr. Beith: It is entirely within the Government's power to give more time to the debates on the amendments. They could put down a motion to give us as much time as we need. I do not know why they want a timetable on the discussion of the Lords amendments. Why are they worried? The Lords amendments are not so numerous that we could not discuss them in a reasonable time. Many of them are Government amendments. The truth is that the Government

want to curtail the discussion on those amendments. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West was right to seize upon this point at an early stage.
The Government have got themselves into difficulties and have had to resort to a timetable motion, but their action is unnecessary. This is another illustration of their contemptuous attitude towards Parliament. Originally, they told the local authorities not to worry and that they would be able to charge for school transport for any number of children and at any level of charge, but in the course of the past few months they have run into difficulties and they have had to make concessions one by one.
First, there was the concession of a fixed rate of charge. Then there was the concession over the number of children —the charge could be made only for a limited number. Then the Government lost the clause altogether in another place, thus putting the few local authorities that were rash enough to go ahead into a position whereby the provisions that they had put in their budgets were no longer legally possible. The Government are still worried that they will leave the local authorities in the lurch in relation to some other aspect of the Bill. Therefore, they have had to compress the proceedings and rush through the Royal Assent tomorrow. They have even put a motion on the Order Paper to make sure that we sit around tomorrow waiting for Royal Assent. If there is any delay, we shall still be here at 7 pm tomorrow debating second, third and fourth Adjournments while the Lords discuss any amendments that we may make to their amendments. The Government are in a panic.
The Government have told local authorities "Do not worry, we can fix Parliament." The Secretary of State has told them that they need not wait to see whether the House of Commons or the House of Lords approves. They have told them that they have those bodies in the palms of their hands. The Government have said that they need only put the Bill before hon. Members for it to be carried. They have told local authorities to include those provisions in their budgets and that that will be all right. What has happened? They have lost. They have had to make concessions. Hon. Members from all parties object to the provisions. The Government have been defeated in another place on a massive scale.
Have the Government learnt the lesson that decisions are supposed to be made in Parliament? They have no right to tell local authorities not to worry about Parliament because they, the Government, are running the show. They have no right to tell them what to put in their budgets or to assure them that they will sort out any consequent problems. Both Houses of Parliament have effectively rejected that approach. Any local authority that has been taken in by the Government has had its fingers badly burnt.
The timetable motion is another illustration of the Government's desire to push Parliament aside and to run government by ministerial dictation from Whitehall. That is not the way that we are supposed to run the country. That is not the way to invite local authorities to play a part in the government of Britain. I ask hon. Members to stand up for the principles of parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Christopher Price: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has done the House a good turn because he has pointed to one of the flaws in the motion. I hope that Conservative Members will feel free—as they are not losing anything, and as no one will vote separately on the amendment—to accept the amendment. They have nothing to lose.
The Government know that it is not a matter of the Education (No. 2) Bill. If they insist on resisting the amendment, the House will draw only one conclusion, namely, that this motion has been brought in not to meet the needs of the Bill but to set a precedent for some of the other guillotines that the Government know they will have to bring in on Lords amendments to other Bills. They wish to prevent the House of Commons from voting separately on particular Lords amendments. I am sorry to be so suspicious. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State wishes to intervene. He seems to be on one haunch.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the motion makes any new point?

Mr. Price: My amendment contains a completely new point. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's amendment is new. However, I spent a large

part of the years 1974–76, when I was in Opposition, successfully persuading the Labour Government to change the form of guillotine motions. In those days guillotine motions also wiped out Ten-Minute Bills. Indeed, we would have had no Ten-Minute Bill today if we had followed the old system of guillotine motions.
I am deeply suspicious of our business managers. They are always trying to slip through new forms and shapes of guillotine motions. They seek to prevent the House from undertaking the detailed scrutiny of legislation that should be employed. It is well to remember that at one time guillotine motions were introduced very sparingly. In the old days we spent a whole day discussing a guillotine motion. That discussion could be curtailed was a serious consideration.
The Government have put down a guillotine motion completely unnecessarily. There is nothing controversial in the Lords amendments. The Government are also putting down a form of block voting that is completely unnecessary. The official Opposition, a splinter group from the official Opposition or Conservative Back Benchers would not dream of voting against the amendments, save perhaps for the mad mullahs who would like to restore school transport charges. I can only conclude that the motion is to set a precedent for the Housing, Employment and other Bills. Beyond that, paragraph 1(1) in the motion is wholly unprecedented.
I understood what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to say when he intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—that it is an attempt to meet the convenience of the whole House, and have a flexible guillotine period that might run to the full hour allowed in the motion of 29 January or might be taken on the nod. The business managers on both sides would like to get the vote on the guillotine over and send everyone home.
I have sufficient experience of the House to be suspicious. Perhaps on this occasion it is for the convenience of the House to have a concertina clause as the first clause of the guillotine motion. In the past it has been clear. We had a guiltine clause motion that exactly specified the length of the debate on allocation of time and then an exact specification of


the time allocated to the remaining business. That is the proper way to do it. If we slip away from that approach, we shall have lost the chance to exert our rights in debating the guillotine motion and the remaining business to be guillotimed, because a precedent will have been set. It will have formed a footnote in "Erskine May". Before we know where we are, our rights will have been washed away.
I support the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed in this at least. The Government have got themselves into this muddle for one reason and one reason only. They have foolishly promised to legislate on a massive chunk of education policy in half a Session. Governments have never tried to do that before.
The Government made local authorities a range of promises quite outside their power. As a result, many local authorities, particularly those that planned to charge for school transport, find that their estimates and expenditure plans are in chaos. It was promised that they would be allowed to charge for school transport, and they so planned the remainder of their education budget. They now have to change every single heading to find the extra money.
The Government are at fault in two ways. I hope that they have learnt the lesson of rushing legislation. They are in a muddle because of the 4 April deadline, and they are willing to use every parliamentary device, fair or unfair, to rush the legislation through in time.
I may be wrong in my suspicions, but I doubt it. I believe that the Government have concocted, in order to form a precedent, a wholly new form of allocation of time motion that has no relevance to the amendments before us. I shall warmly support the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed if he decides to press his amendment. If the Government have any sense, they will accept it.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I shall reply briefly to the points raised. The Government have made it clear that it is their desire to pass the Bill before parliament rises for the Easter Recess. I make no confession or apology about that. We made that clear from the out-

set because of the clauses that allow for savings of money on school meals.
It is the desire and the wish of the Government that the Bill should receive Royal Assent tomorrow. Although there is little controversy in any of the Lords amendments, it was to safeguard that position that we felt it right to table the timetable motion.
I shall take up the two points made on the amendment and deal with the second point first. As far as I know, the timetable motion, which allows not for a specific time for debate but that the debate should end four hours from the moment that the timetable motion is moved, is a new measure. It was an attempt to meet what we thought would be helpful to the House.
Under the previous timetable motion passed by the House, the time allowed for the debate on the motion was one hour. Therefore, I could have merely moved a motion allowing for three hours' debate on the amendments, assuming that one hour would be taken on the timetable motion. That would give a total of four hours, which is usually accepted as a half-day debate. If the motion was passed in less than an hour, there would still have been a limited three hours for debate, By tabling this motion—should it be taken either on the nod or after a short debate—there would be a longer period, if the House wished it, to debate the Lords amendments.
It was in no way a deception. We intended to give a measure of flexibility by tabling the motion in this manner. We considered the substance of the Lords amendments. The Government will invite the House to agree with all of them. Many of them are of a drafting nature. That will leave ample time for debate.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that he has never before seen anything like the motion. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said that he had been a trustee safeguard of the interest of the Back Benchers when be was on this side of the House between 1974 and 1978. There is a precedent for the paragraph in this timetable motion which provides that at the end of four hours' debate any outstanding Lords amendments shall be put


at once. During the period of the previous Labour Administration, every time table motion contained such a provision.
If the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was watching interestedly, as he says he was, and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West was being a doughty safeguarder of the Back Benchers, I am bound to tell them that they failed to take the point that such a paragraph has been used on every occasion over the last few years. Therefore, I am following a perfectly proper precedent.

Mr. Beith: The Minister is right in one respect but wrong in another. He overlooked entirely that I moved a number of amendments to Bills in the previous Parliament, including the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, specifically designed to enable votes to be taken on amendments selected by Mr. Speaker and which were to be taken in

a block at the end of the guillotine period. He cannot charge me with having failed to take that point in the last Parliament or the one before.

Mr. Carlisle: With great respect, I can charge the hon. Gentleman with a slight lapse of memory. I heard him say clearly in his speech that he had never seen any timetable motion of this nature before. He is now saying that every time he has seen such a motion he has attempted to amend it.

The Lords amendments are non-controversial. At this hour, the sooner that we proceed with debating them the better. I hope that the House will approve the timetable motion.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 70.

Division No. 250]
AYES
[9.45 pm


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Parris, Matthew


Aspinwall, Jack
Gummer, John Selwyn
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Haselhurst, Alan
Patten, John (Oxford)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Heddle, John
Percival, Sir Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Hill, James
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Best, Keith
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhodes James, Robert


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Body, Richard
Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Bowden, Andrew
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Boyson, Or Rhodes
King, Rt Hon Tom
Silvester, Fred


Bright, Graham
Latham, Michael
Speed, Keith


Brinton, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lawson, Nigel
Steen, Anthony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Lee, John
Stevens, Martin


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stradling Thomas, J.


Buck, Antony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tebbit, Norman


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Luce, Richard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lyell, Nicholas
Thompson, Donald


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Macfarlane, Neil
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)


Chapman, Sydney
MacGregor, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Cockeram, Eric
Major, John
Trippier, David


Colvin, Michael
Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Cope, John
Mather, Carol
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Costain, A. P.
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Waddington, David


Crouch, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Dickens, Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Moate, Roger
Waller, Gary


Dover, Denshore
Murphy, Christopher
Watson, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Myles, David
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage]


Dykes, Hugh
Neale, Gerrard
Wheeler, John


Eyre, Reginald
Needham, Richard
Wickenden, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Nelson, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Normanton, Tom



Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gow, Ian
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Greenway, Harry
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Mr. Tony Newton.


NOES


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Canavan, Dennis
Cowans, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Cryer, Bob




Dalyell, Tam
Home Robertson, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Howells, Geraint
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Dewar, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West


Dormand, Jack
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Richardson, Jo


Douglas, Dick
Kinnock, Nell
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Dubs, Alfred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Rooker, J. W.


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spearing, Nigel


English, Michael
McNally, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Ewing, Harry
McWilliam, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Field, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fitt, Gerard
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Welsh, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Foster, Derek
Molyneaux, James
Winnick, David


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)



Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morton, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hardy, Peter
Park, George



Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert
Mr. Ted Graham and Mr. James Tinn.


Haynes, Frank
Penhaligon, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Order of the House [29 January] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion not later than at the expiration of the period of four hours beginning with the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments.

2. If at the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph 1(1) above the proceedings

on Consideration of Lords Amendments have not been completed, then, for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 4

GOVERNORS' PROCEEDINGS AND TENURE OF OFFICE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 15, at end insert:
( )Regulations under subsection (1) above shall make provision for the election of a chairman by the governors of any such school.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This was a Government amendment agreed on Report in the other place and was proposed in response to arguments advanced from the Liberal Benches.
Although the model instrument for county schools already provides for the chairman of a governing body to be chosen by election by the governing body itself, the Government accepted that in the context of the new provisions of the Bill it was desirable to enshrine this requirement in the statute to apply to all governing bodies.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendment, which I hope is a sign of Government and parliamentary faith in school governing bodies and in the principle that they should be independent, with self-confidence and self-respect. We should clearly spell out that they appoint their own chairmen. We particularly want to get away from the notion that the local governing body must be controlled by the education authority, which must put in its own chairman.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that the local governing body

chooses as chairman any suitable person from among its own members. That is part of an assertion of its own independence.
I welcome the ready way in which the Government have accepted the point made strongly by my noble Friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8

INFORMATION AS TO SCHOOLS AND ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 8, leave out lines 32 to 34.

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Dr. Boyson: These are quite complicated amendments. I can explain their intention at greater length if that is the desire of the House. However, I believe that hon. Members may prefer to move on to matters which have a little more blood in them. In view of certain alterations made in the other place, these are consequential amendments. Some are linked with the bringing of information to the parents of handicapped children. These amendments largely mean that the local authority may give information or direct that it be given out at times different from the times when it is going through an application for a school and appeals system. That is the only reason for these amendments.

It being Ten o'clock, consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Limitation Amendment Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Cope.]

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL

Lords amendments again considered.

Dr. Boyson: That interruption was bad for my nerves. I feel that I am under some degree of persecution. I was coming towards the end of a graphic description of these complicated matters. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 9

NURSERY SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 9, line 27, after first "schools" insert:
or to children who will not have attained the age of five years at the time of their proposed admission except that where the arrangements for the admission of pupils to a school maintained by a local education authority provide for the admission of children who will attain that age within six months after their admission those sections shall have effect in relation to the admission of such pupils to that school.
( ) None of the provisions of those sections other than subsections (5) and (6) of section 8 have effect in relation to".

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take also the following:

Amendments to Lords amendment No. 7:

Leave out 'five' and insert 'three'.

Leave out from first 'admission' to the end.

Lords amendment No. 8, in clause 12, page 12, line 17, at end insert:
excluding pupils who will not have attained the age of five years within six months after their admission".

The following amendments thereto:

Leave out 'will not have' and insert 'have not'.

Leave out 'five' and insert 'four'.

Leave out:
'within six months after their admission'.

Lords amendment No. 9, in clause 15, page 15, line 11, at beginning insert
Subject to subsection (1A) below

Lords amendment No. 12, in page 15, line 17, at end insert—
(1A) Where the age group in question includes children who will not have attained the age of five years within six months after their admission, those children shall be disregarded both in determining the number of pupils who are to be admitted and the standard number applying under this section.

Lords amendment No. 21, in clause 26, page 26, line 5, at end insert—
(3) In the definition of 'pupil' in section 114(1) of the said Act of 1944 (which defines pupils as those for whom education is required to be provided under that Act) there shall be added at the end the words but includes a junior pupil who has not attained the age of five years.'.

The following amendment thereto: leave out 'five' and insert 'four'.

Mrs. Anne Taylor: As the Under-Secretary of State suggested, some parts of the debate will be controversial.
We consider this section of the Lords amendments and the amendments that we have tabled to them to be important and significant.
The amendments to the Lords amendments do two specific things. First, we have sought to reduce the age limit which is written into clause 9 so that the parents of children from the age of 3 should be entitled to information about school places and be able to appeal against the allocation or non-allocation of places by a local education authority.
The Minister may tell us that the parents of 3-year-old children may not wish to use the facilities that we are trying to write into the Bill. However, we feel that some parents of 3-year-olds will wish to have information about school places and may wish to appeal against the refusal by a local authority to provide nursery school places.
We also believe that many parents of 4-year-old children will want to take advantage of this kind of provision and will want information about nursery schools and classes and about the method of selection of pupils to go to nursery school classes. Certainly many parents of 4-year-olds will wish to be able to appeal if they are dissatisfied with the attitude of the local education authority on the allocation of places.
Our second amendment seeks to leave out part of clause 9, which exempts a


large number of local education authorities from this provision. Clause 9 as drafted means that only authorities which choose to admit rising fives to their primary schools will be covered by the appeals procedure. Under the Lords amendment, it may be that only schools where the local authority has decided that rising fives should be admitted will be covered by the appeals procedure. That is far too restrictive and should be amended.
The Government's attitude on this matter is extremely restrictive and is against the under-fives. This is a deliberate decision by the Government to discourage local education authorities from making provision for under-age pupils. It would have been extremely easy for the Government to encourage authorities to provide for rising fives and under-fives generally. If the Government had left the Bill as it was when it left the Commons, the under-fives would have had a much better deal than they will get from the amendments that the Government want us to approve.
Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee on the Bill will realise that the orginal provision which gave appeal facilities to the under-fives seems almost to have been a mistake by the Government. We all recall, no doubt, when, on 18 December, the Under-Secretary was pressed to be explicit about these provisions covering appeals for the under-fives. He is indicating that he remembers it. We certainly do, because it was only thanks to some kindly intervention by Labour Members that the Minister was able rapidly to obtain some advice from his officials enabling him to confirm our interpretation of the clause—namely, that it applied to the rising fives and 4-yearolds seeking places in primary schools.
At the time, we welcomed the provision. We were surprised about it, but we thought it right that under-fives should be covered by clauses 6, 7 and 8. However, we should have known that it was too good to be true for the Government to be taking constructive action in the Bill. They are now backing down, changing their mind and withdrawing the provision. It is silly of them to take that attitude. All the items that are covered by the provision—parental preference rights, appeals procedure and information—do not mean that the auth-

orities have to provide places for all the 4-year-olds in their areas.
Those of us who were on the Standing Committee know that there is a great escape clause in respect of appeals and parental preference. Clause 6 provides that parental preference will not apply if it is detrimental to the efficient use of resources. That means that local authorities can get out of many obligations if they wish. It would have been right for the Government to try to emphasise to the local authorities that they should continue to provide for the under-fives and that that was the kind of direction they should be following.
It is strange that the Secretary of State and other Ministers have taken this course of action. On many occasions over the last few months while he has been Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues in the Department have stated, both in speeches and in parliamentary answers, that they believe that there should be more provision for rising fives. The Under-Secretary of State has said that it is Government policy to encourage provision for the under-fives and to admit under-fives to primary schools wherever possible.
If the Minister is serious about wanting to encourage local authorities to admit rising fives to primary schools, he should have left this provision in the Bill to bring pressure on local authorities such as Oxfordshire, which has no provision for rising fives, and Ealing, which has decided that it wants to stop all provision for rising fives. If Ministers are serious in what they say, they would not have introduced the amendment in another place and asked us to confirm it tonight. They would not be stating in press releases, as the Government did recently on their plans for expenditure cuts in education, that they anticipated a reduction in the number of places for under-fives in primary schools.
We believe that the Government are not concerned about the situation for under-fives. They are not concerned about using the spare capacity that exists. They are concerned only about education cuts. That is the reason for the amendment which is before the House.
The Government are getting themselves into a lot of difficulties. They are saying that there is no need to worry about cuts in nursery education and closure


of nursery schools and nursery classes. The Government say that instead of developing nursery education they intend to take more under-age pupils into primary schools, which is made possible by falling roles and spare capacity. At the same time, the Government are actively refusing to take advantage of a clause in the Bill that would allow parents and everyone involved in education to put pressure on local authorities to take advantage of the spare capacity and to make provision for the under-fives through that process.
The Minister should be willing to tell the House why he thinks that it would be disastrous to keep the clause in the Bill. If he believes that something should be done for the rising fives, he must realise that the proposals that he puts forward are damaging to the interests of the under-fives and, therefore, damaging to many children's future education prospects as a whole.

Mr. Christopher Price: I have also put my name to these amendments to the Lords amendments. It is important for the House to take the amendments seriously. I am prepared, if any of my hon. Friends or any Conservative Member would join me, to press the amendments to a Division. The Bill contains a new system of parental preference, appeals and information. Much of this was contained in the Labour Government's Bill. It could be said to be agreed legislation between the two sides of the House.
However, the Government, in their amendments, are to apply this system of information and appeals, which ought to stretch right across the age range of children at school, to only part of that age range, and, in certain local authorities, only to children aged five and over. It is no excuse for the Government to say that the rules about nursery education have been changed and that, although there was some doubt in the past, there is now no doubt that there is no duty on local authorities to provide nursery education for children.
There is no duty on local authorities to provide education for children over the age of 16 if they do not wish to do so. But because that is education which, on the whole, tends to he afforded to the

privileged rather than the under-privileged, it is generally provided by local authorities. Education between the ages of 16 and 19 is subject to parental preference, information procedures and everything else in the Bill.
10.15 pm
Anyone who served on the Standing Committee will know the nature of the panic the Government got themselves into over nursery schools when it was realised that there was a problem. That is an example of the danger inherent in rushed legislation. In this case it would have the effect of excluding some youngsters and their parents from the system, and it is not good enough that the Government should do that because they got into a panic.
It is particularly dangerous for the Government to do that, because the school a child attends at 3 or 4 years of age determines the school it will attend at the age of 18. Conservative Members constantly regale us with stories of parents moving into particular districts so that they can pick particular primary schools and so be in a position to select the secondary school to which their children will go.
If that is so, the system of parental preference, of provision of information and of final appeal should be as available to the parents of children of nursery school age—the rising fives—as it is available to every other parent in the school system.
But it is worse than that. The Bill differentiates between local education authorities. The amendment states:
Where the arrangements for the admission of pupils to a school maintained by a local education authority provide for the admission of children who will attain that age within six months after their admission…
We are meant to have a national system of preference, information and appeal, but we are legislating for two classes of local education authority. The first class comprises those authorities which have decided to be mean about nursery schools—such as Oxfordshire and Ealing—and I am sure there will be other examples as this year goes on. The second class comprises those authorities which have decided to try to maintain their responsibilities for nursery education.
Because of the importance of a child's first school, because of the undesirability


of creating two classes of local education authority by legislation, because of the need, when we legislate, for a national system which is available as much as to one parent as to another, thus avoiding discrimination, and, beyond that, because of the need to re-emphasise in this House something on which we might be broadly in agreement, pre-school education is a more crucial stage in the system than primary or secondary education. All the evidence from the National Children's Bureau states that the great differences in ability among youngsters appear not between the ages of 5 and 16 or between 5 and 18 but before the age of 5.
I do not wish to make too much of this amendment. It is not central to the fabric of the system. However, it is an important erosion of the principle of having a national system. It arises not from mature consideration by the Government but from panic reaction to a reactionary local education authority—Oxfordshire—that could have been taken to court by the citizens of the county. The Government felt that they had to leap in and use the House to protect their political friends in Oxfordshire from being taken to court.
Some Ministers feel that Lords amendments are an opportunity to be generous. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment and thereby achieve a national system.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) stretched the point a little when he said that a nursery school attended by a child of 3 or 4 years of age could determine what happened to that child when he was 18. However, I do not contradict his opinion that nursery schools have a deep and lasting value. I cannot agree with him about his comparison with tertiary education. I should like to restate my conviction that nursery education is valuable to all children who are ready for it. But not all children are ready at that age, and this fact must be remembered in all discussion on this sector. I am an educationist, and I know that that is so.
Nursery education is especially valuable because it comes when children first begin to establish relationships with adults and other children. The earlier that they begin that process, the better. They also learn to handle materials, and

deprived children experience an environment which is brighter than that which they have at home. That is valuable.
There is no substitute for a child's relationship with its mother and, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) reminded me on Report, with its father. For some children that is almost enough until they are 5 years of age. However, many children are ready for school well before they are that age. Society should recognise that.
I support the concept of nursery education. It is valuable in itself. I would give priority to deprived children—the children who live in an unacceptable and unhappy and a socially unstructured environment. All such children should attend nursery school. There is nowhere else for them at that age.
Additionally, some nursery education should be provided in areas where there is none at present. In principle, education should be available to all children who can profit from it at the beginning of the term in which they reach their fifth birthday. That cannot be made compulsory. We do not want more compulsion in education; it can be damaging. From there we might grow downwards chronologically towards the age of 3 and bring aid to children when they are little able to help themselves and when parents in particular and society in general have an extra duty towards them. This is an age when children are at their most robust and when they are most ready to learn. They are also at their most vulnerable, and we must always remember that vulnerability is of concern to us all and when children are involved it is of special concern.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I realise the great sincerity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) speaks when he makes clear his belief in the importance of nursery education for the rising fives. I am sure that those he represents will take note of what he has said.
In replying to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor), I shall deal with the whole group of Lords amendments that are being taken together. Although the amendments have rightly, in the judg-


ment of Mr. Speaker, been taken together as a group, I do not know whether the House realises that they deal with four totally different points. However, from the way in which the amendments are worded it is clear why they have been grouped as they have.
First, Lords amendment No. 7 deals in part—this is what the amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton, West was about—with the application of clauses 6, 7 and 8 to the rising fives but not those below the age of rising fives. Secondly, Lords amendment No. 7, in its second part, deals with the important point about the publication of information on special schools, which I think will be welcomed by all hon. Members. Thirdly, Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 12 state that the clause 15 procedure shall not apply to education at an age below that of rising fives. Finally, Lords amendment No. 21 is a technical amendment dealing with the definition of a pupil under the 1944 Act arising out of the decisions that the House took on nursery education.
Before I turn to the effect of these various amendments, I should like to say one thing to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). He made the same point as was made by many Opposition Members when I moved previous amendments on nursery education. I was attacked on that evening by many hon. Members who said that I was moving the clauses merely to allow my political friends in Oxfordshire to get off the hook. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West repeated that today. The hon. Member is always very fair in debate and I am sure he will agree that that was not the way my political friends in Oxfordshire apparently saw it. In fact, on the following day they announced that, in view of the Government's decision not to allow the closing of nursery schools, they had withdrawn their proposals to close nursery schools in Oxfordshire. Therefore, what I said in my speech in introducing the purpose of those clauses and attempting to get a balance was proved more right than some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West and some of his hon. Friends on that occasion about my motivation.
Having said that, I turn to the amendments now before us. I shall deal first with the part which I describe as wholly non-contentious, which is the effect of the second paragraph of Lords amendment No. 7. It will require local education authorities to publish information about their policy and arrangements relating to special educational treatment. That resulted from an undertaking, which I gave to the House on Report, that we would look at this matter before the Bill reached the other place. I said that we would see whether we could at least do something about the information clauses in the other place and that we could look at the other points beforehand.
10.30 pm
The House will know that early in March I made a statement indicating the Government's proposals with regard to Warnock. Also, we moved the amendment in the other place the effect of which is to provide that the information parts of clauses 6, 7 and 8 apply to children at special schools. For technical reasons, I believe that that was as far as we could go in this Bill. I think that we are right to deal with the other matters, as I said we would, in the Warnock legislation.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has in part answered the point that I wanted to raise. However, I think he will accept that when he spoke on Report the indications which he gave were slightly stronger than the undertakings which he has fulfilled. They applied not only to the provision of information but to a degree of parental preference in regard to children in special schools, as well as to the appeals system. Some of us would take some convincing that the technical difficulties were so great that those points could not be encompassed in this Bill rather than in future legislation.

Mr. Carlisle: I did not want to get into a controversial frame of mind, because that is not the mood that I am in tonight. However, I cannot accept what the hon. Lady has said. What I said was:
I still believe that the Warnock report should be considered generally. If my hon. Friends think that it will help, I give the undertaking to reconsider the information clause and to do anything else that is possible before the Bill goes to another place".—[Official Report, 12 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 1427.]


I also made an announcement on Warnock on 3 March, in which I said:
The legislation will also define and protect the rights of parents to adequate information and consultation about the education offered for their children, taking account of the relevant recommendations of the report and in the spirit of the provisions about information and parental preference embodied in the Education (No. 2) Bill":—[Official Report, 3 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 42–3.]
In fact I went further, because I discovered that we could meet the limited information point in the other place. With the greatest respect, I think that carries out in its totality the undertaking which I gave:
to reconsider the information clause and to do anything else that is possible before the Bill goes to another place".
I believe that I have succeeded in doing that.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am in a controversial frame of mind, as ever, but not a churlish one. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement on the Warnock proposals was made on 3 March. It is now 2 April. Given that he could coin important amendments to section 8 of the 1944 Act in respect of the statutory definitions on the provision of nursery education, and given the right hon. and learned Gentleman's modest aims to make statutory changes with regard to the rights of parents and other matters—such as the needs of the disabled or children in need of special education—why has it not been possible for him to bring forward amendments which would have provided such parents with those rights 18 months in advance of the time when they can now look forward to them?

Mr. Carlisle: For the reasons which I gave the hon. Gentleman when I made my statement on the Warnock report. In practice, I believe that the hon. Gentleman will find that there is no time gap between the implementation of that part of the Bill and our hopeful implementation of Warnock legislation. Of course, I cannot assume what will come in the next Loyal Address, and I do not attempt to do so. That is not my decision; it is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I stick to the view that we have held throughout. In fact, the appeal provisions as laid out in the Bill do not apply suitably to parents of children

with special educational needs. That matter will be better dealt with under the provisions of our proposed Warnock legislation. However, in the other place I was able to meet the point with regard to the information clauses. The hon. Lady's second amendment to Lords amendment No. 7 would remove that totally.
The first part of Lords amendment No. 7 is to apply clauses 6 to 8 to the admission of pupils below compulsory school age, but only if they are what is known as rising fives—that is, within six months of their fifth birthday. I realise that the hon. Lady's amendment would wish us to go further and apply clauses 6 to 8 to any child over the age of three. I do not believe that it is realistic to do so. Had we left the Bill as it was, there would have been confusion. In principle, I agree that where local authorities have normal arrangements for accepting rising fives, the provisions of clauses 6, 7 and 8 should apply to them. Equally, I must make it clear that it is not Government policy that the clauses should be used as a method of appeal in areas where the local authorities have chosen not to make such provision.
It was argued that although there was no provision for the education of children under five in a particular area, and although there is no compulsion on local authorities to make such provision, nevertheless parents might attempt to use an appeal under clause 8, claiming that they had been refused an application to a school when the local authority made no such provision. To make it clearer, we have said specifically that where arrangements are made for the education of rising fives parents should have the same rights as parents of children above compulsory school age.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State comment on the areas which do not make any provision at all for the rising fives? Is his Department quite content to sit back and let the clause apply only to local authorities which choose to have it apply to them? If that is so, local authorities could say that they did not want to be bothered by appeals and, therefore, they would have no provision at all. Is that really satisfactory?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady is probably more correct this time than she was earlier. It is true that these clauses will not apply to children under the age of five in an area where there is not normally an arrangement for accepting rising fives. It will still apply to the schools for children of compulsory school age. If we are talking about nursery provision, it is a question of whether it is there or not. It is not a question of which nursery school one wishes one's children to attend. While we are anxious to make it clear that the clauses apply to children under five, it is not right for us to leave a confused situation in which it might be argued that these clauses provide a right of appeal for parents for education of children under compulsory school age in an area where a local authority had made no such provision.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: In the remarks that the Secretary of State has just made, he referred to nursery education. We are talking about rising fives who are admitted to primary schools. Surely that situation is different.

Mr. Carlisle: If arrangements are made—this touches on Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 12 as well—for the acceptance of rising fives, these clauses will apply. Had we left it at compulsory school age, the advantages of these provisions would not have applied to the parents of children who had begun school under 5 years of age.
Where authorities do not make provision for rising fives—

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Secretary of State is not bothered.

Mr. Carlisle: I shall answer the hon. Lady's question. Where no provision has been made for those under the age, of 5, these clauses cannot bite, because it is an appeal against the school to which one's child has been allocated. If there is no such provision, those children will not have been allocated to a school. There is a degree of confusion. Indeed, I am sure that there is now that I have attempted to explain the law. However, we put down our amendment to alleviate that confusion.

Mr. Beith: The situation is very confusing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying hard to explain it.

He is doing so in a clear manner. However, the situation remains confusing. He speaks as if a clear-cut distinction can be made between the situation when rising fives are admitted to school and when they are not. He assumes that any area will find it readily apparent whether the clause bites in such cases.
Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will apply his mind to the position that he and other hon. Members have sought to encourage. The issue is very flexible. In one year, a school may say that it has extra space and that it will consider applications from rising fives. However, the situation may change the following year and the school may find that it has too many children of compulsory school age. Within a small town, one school may admit rising fives and another may not.
A parent might exercise the system by pointing out that in the previous year a school had admitted a child who was only 4 years and 7 months old. He might point out that the school had refused to accept his child the following year. The position is often more fluid than the Secretary of State has described. Parents may say that at another time or place a child had been allocated to a school in comparable circumstances and that the case for pressing his own child's case could therefore be made.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The situation is fluid. It is not entirely black and white. However, a limit must be set to the application of these clauses. Our amendments seek to make clear that the clauses apply to schools—whose arrangements on admission procedure will now have to be published—which claim to admit rising fives. They will not apply to children under the age of 5 in areas where local authorities do not make arrangements for them.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I must now turn to the other amendments. I do not wish to mislead the House. Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 12 specifically exclude the effects of clause 15 from rising fives. The reduction in the numbers of rising fives—even if over 20 per cent. in a standard year—would not require the publication of proposals in an area.
We believe that we have given protection by implementing and introducing nursery schools for the first time, under the old clause 13 procedure. From tomorrow, that clause will become section 12. They cannot be closed without application to the Secretary of State. If the removal of nursery classes were to make a significant alteration to the type of school, that would be a matter for clause 13. Tomorrow that clause will become section 12. We have made adequate provision for nursery education.
We are right to say that clauses 6, 7 and 8 should apply to rising fives but not to those below that age. The provisions contained in clause 15 about limiting the size of a class should not include those below compulsory school age.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, especially for his last point. Is he aware that in Committee, when the rights of parents to be exercised under clauses 6, 7 and 8 arose, the Under-Secretary of State, without any intention to mislead, gave the strong impression that the right of appeal would exist throughout England and Wales? It was not limited to the local education authorities which on a previous occasion, without notice, warning or anticipation of the change in the law that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes, had adopted a policy of accepting rising fives in their schools or making nursery provision for them. We responded on that basis. Had we been aware that the criterion of whether the writ of the law would run on the exercise of parental rights was limited to LEAs which already had arrangements for the admission of rising fives, our attitude would have been very different. Our amendments would have been different in substance and intensity.
May I raise two further small points? The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of the appeal being against allocation. That is correct, but it omits the powers that a parent has under section 6 to express a preference. Presumably that preference can be expressed in favour of securing education at a particular age for a child, and not only in terms of securing allocation to a particular school.
I wonder how the principle of recoupment between local authorities works in relation to a policy that says that the right of a parent to secure admission of his rising five child to a school will be denied in an area that does not already have provision, yet in another part of the Bill there is provision for children to be moved across borders, with recoupment and rights for the LEA written in. Does the same consideration apply to rising fives as to rising elevens, fifteens or sixteens?

Mr. Carlisle: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman must realise that it is totally illogical to use clauses 6, 7 and 8 where there is no compulsory schooling below the age of five.
To take the hon. Gentleman's example that the parent of a child under 5 in an area which has no provision for children under 5 should be able nevertheless to express a preference for a school, I would point out that, the preference having been stated and the local authority having refused to take the child because it was not making provision for educating children under 5, the parent could not appeal, because there was no school in the area at which a child under 5 could be educated.
The only logical, sensible answer is to say that these clauses do not apply to children other than of compulsory school age, except—this is a concession that we made to meet the points made by the Opposition—that where a local authority has arrangements for taking rising fives—and under clause 8 authorities will have to publish their arrangements for admission—these clauses shall apply.

Mr. Christopher Price: I know that the Secretary of State is trying to be helpful, but he sometimes uses the word "authority" and sometimes "area". When he uses the word "area", does he mean coterminous with the whole authority?
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was right. Very few local authorities are totally against rising fives. The whole point of the Bill, emphasised by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee, is that it is allowing far more free places than before. Did the Secretary of State mean "authority" when he said "area"? What does he mean by "area"?

Mr. Carlisle: On reflection, I am probably wrong to use either word. The requirement of the Bill is that the local education authority—I should not have used the word "area"—is required to state the arrangements for admission to its schools. Therefore, the admission arrangements to its schools in part of its area may be different from those in other parts. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 will apply to schools that admit rising fives. A parent will be able to express a preference and will be able to appeal. It would be illogical to continue and extend these clauses to schools where no provision is made for rising fives.
I do not hesitate in taking time over these amendments. Among other things. I find them extremely complicated, even if they do not appear so to the rest of the House. Taken with these amendments is Lords amendment No. 21. It is a technical amendment which changes the definition of "pupil".
If we did not change the definition, a pupil would be defined only as a child beyond the age of 5. The provisions in the Bill, which impose certain statutory responsibilities on local authorities with regard to children at school, would not apply to any child under the age of 5. We are amending it to say that "pupil" shall mean not only a child of compulsory school age but shall include
a junior pupil who has not attained the age of five years.
The effect of the Opposition's amendment would be contrary to what they intended. It would mean that a pupil was a child under 4 or over 5 but that between 4 and 5 he would not be a pupil.

Mr. Beith: I had not intended to intervene, but we have stumbled upon a difficulty and a complication. As I understand the clause, it appears to apply to a specific school. As the Minister conceded, the concept of an area, whether a local authority or a district area, is not what we are discussing. Therefore, if a parent specifies that he wishes his child to be admitted to Holly Road infants school, which is admitting children at the age of 4½, the parent can appeal against a refusal. He can say that he wishes his child to be allocated to that school because it admits rising fives.
The local education authority may have a perfectly good reason on which to

win the appeal, for example, by arguing that there is no room at that school because it is full of children of compulsory school age. I am anxious that that matter should be made clear. If that is not the case, I anticipate that we shall have a nasty side-kick from the clause. If it were the case that the whole area was affected, the authority could say "We have only one or two schools admitting rising fives, but if we stop that altogether we will free ourselves from any reference to rising fives under the clause." Some hard-pressed education officer may say that it is better to scrap all the rising five provision than to become involved in such a problem. I am sure that that is not what the Minister intends, but he should realise the side effects.
The interpretation that we appear to have arrived at through discussion is that we are referring to individual schools and that the right of appeal will apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 15

REDUCTION OF SCHOOL PLACES

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 15, line 11, after "where" insert "(a)".

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take Lords amendment No. 11.

Mr. Carlisle: The purpose of the amendment is to remove the duty on local education authorities and governors of voluntary schools to publish proposals when they intend to restrict admission to primary schools where the standard number of admissions is fewer than 20. It in no way affects the need of local authorities to publish notices in the normal way under section 12 if they attempt to close a school.
It was argued in another place that to include clause 15, which deals with reducing numbers by over 20 per cent., and to publish notices was not appropriate for schools with 20 or fewer admissions. The effect of the clause would have been to


oblige them to go through the process of publishing notices under section 12 if, for example, they reduced admissions by four pupils a year.

Mr. Kinnock: The Opposition are worried about the whole of clause 15 and the new addition. We accept that in the event of a proposal to close a school the normal section 12 procedures will have to be operated. What will be the situation if a school is transferred from the wholly maintained sector to the voluntary aided sector? Will the same safeguards apply?
An example is likely to come before the Secretary of State, although admittedly it is in the secondary sector. In the borough of Ealing it is proposed that the Twyford comprehensive school should become a Church of England school, and that its management and decisions about the basis of selection or admission should be moved to a different body and from the local education authority.
I do not wish to labour the point. I hope that there will be other opportunities to discuss the matter of Twyford. There is overwhelming support in the community for those who are trying to prevent the change.
11 pm
With specific reference to amendment No. 11, we wonder whether it is possible—because of the inclusion of primary schools, especially those with a small annual intake—that a change could take place which would result in a system of selectivity which would prejudice the general provision of education in the area.
We should also like to know, if the Secretary of State is disposed to respond—we have no power to insist that he does so—with reference to the primary school provisions, but also more generally, what criteria he will employ in making his decision on whether the intention under clause 15(2) to reduce the number of pupils, either in secondary or in primary schools, is satisfactory.

Mr. Beith: I am also worried about the amendment, not simply because of its intention but because of its possible wider effects.
Lord Ridley, who was chairman of the county council in my constituency—we do not share the same party, but we share the same county—pointed out that attendance at schools with small numbers of

pupils could fluctuate considerably because of a change of numbers of families in the area. That applies in many parts of my constituency.
A classic example is a school in my constituency which serves families of shepherds living in the hills. The shepherds change jobs at May each term-year, and if three shepherds with families leave the valley in one year the attendance at school can decrease from 20 to five. Classes at that school are then suspended temporarily. It reopens if the numbers increase again when two or three shepherds come into the valley at the next May term.
That is simply a natural change. The amendment would not affect it, and the amendment is not necessary to deal with it. Those changes have happened because families have come and gone. We are dealing with the prevention of administrative complications if a local authority wishes to use this procedure to reduce the strength of the school by reducing admission numbers. I cannot imagine its doing that. It seems extraordinary. In practice, when local authorities start trimming down the small schools, they do so in other ways—by narrowing the catchment area of the school. I know of one or two cases where a local authority has intended to close a school, and it has narrowed down the catchment area to the smallest area of the village and has shipped all the children from outside the village into another neighbouring school.
Schools with fewer than 20 pupils have a place in the rural education scene, and they can work effectively. Often they are one-teacher, or occasionally two-teacher, schools, or in some cases with which we are experimenting in Northumberland there is one full-time teacher and a shared teacher. It is often right to keep those schools in existence—even if attendance drops to 10 pupils in a particular year—in order to prepare them for a build-up of 16 or 20 pupils in a future year.
I hope that we can make it absolutely clear that, in trying to cut down the bureaucratic complications that would arise in the very undesirable and unlikely event of an education authority's applying the provisions of the clause to such schools, we are not trying to say that we disapprove of, or would want to


discourage, these very small schools where they have a role to play in isolated communities.
In my constituency there is an island which has a one-teacher school. I have valleys where there are one-teacher schools. They exist in other parts of the country, too, They can work very well with talented teachers, and we should defend and maintain them.
To make this exception would be of academic consequence. I hope that no local authority would want to start applying this sort of provision to such schools in any case. But let us be clear that we do not want authorities to do so.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is quite right: it was Lord Ridley who first raised the matter.
I share the views that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. We believe that in dealing with schools of the size in question authorities will close the school entirely, in which case clause 12 still applies, or there will be pressure to try to enlarge the school rather than deliberately to reduce its size. Therefore, the provision in the clause was unnecessary, and we thought it right to exempt such schools.
I assure the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that his point about the transfer of the school is in no way affected by clause 15, which relates merely to a reduction in the size of the school. Any application by a local education authority to cease to maintain a school, even if another body is taking it over, would still have to come under clause 12 in the normal way.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 15, line 27, at end insert—
( ) The published proposals shall be accompanied by a statement of the effect of section 12(3) or, as the case may be, section 13(3) as applied by subsection (2) above.

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment simply ensures that the rights of objectors are published when

proposals are made to restrict admissions to a school. This provision is already made in relation to proposals submitted under clauses 12 and 13. The amendment clarifies the position as regards proposals under clause 15. A local authority that wants to cut the size of a school by 20 per cent. must go to the Secretary of State for permission, so schools cannot be run down intentionally.
The only reason for the amendment is to make sure that, as is already ensured under other clauses, objectors know their rights. Their rights to object are to be publicised at the same time as publicity is given to the fact that the local authority wants to reduce the size of the school.
I do not think that this is a contentious matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SS. 12 TO 15

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 17, line 13, at end insert:

"(6) Section 14(1), (2) and (4) above shall apply, and subsection (6) of the said section 13 shall not apply, in relation to proposals for the matters referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 14(1) above—

(a) which are approved under the said section 13 on or after the date on which this subsection comes into force; or
(b) which have then already been approved under that section but in respect of which specifications and plans have not yet been submitted under subsection (6) of that section;

and, in relation to any such proposals, subsection (7) of the said section 13 shall apply as if references to specifications and plans being approved or not required under that section were references to particulars being approved or not required under section 14 above.

(7) In subsection (6) above references to subsections (6) and (7) of the said section 13 include references to those subsections as applied by subsection (9) of that section."

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is pleasant to be involved in non-controversial amendments tonight. It may be out of character, but it is good character training.
The amendment simply allows the Department's new building control procedures to come into operation immediately and not have to wait until clauses 12 to 16 come into force. The object is to cut down the number of regulations.

Mr. Kinnock: I am relieved by the Under-Secretary's explanation, because, with all the education journalists having gone to China recently, I thought that they had returned and drafted the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and I tried, with the assistance of the 1944 Act, to work out precisely what was intended.
Although I realise that the amendment applies to building regulations, problems arise from the clause. Not the least of the reasons is that we could not spend too much time on it during our other deliberations. This may be an appropriate time to draw attention to a problem that will apply both as regards the clause and in the implementation of the clause.
Subsection (1) has implications for the remainder of the clause, including the amendment. The clause includes the words:
but the Secretary of State may in any case allow such steps to be taken pending compliance with those provisions and the giving of any necessary approval as he considers reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
As this is what is called the speeding-up clause, which permits the expedition of a local authority's intentions to make changes in the provisions for schooling, we are bound to wonder whether a Secretary of State, having received a section 12 notice—it was a section 13 notice under the 1944 Act—on further assessment of those proposals, will have to contradict his own judgment. In the first instance, having allowed such steps to be taken pending compliance—permitting the local education authority to proceed towards its objective of making changes—and then having received objections from parents or other electors in the community, he may come to the conclusion that his decision to allow such steps to be taken was ill-advised and have to change his mind.
We are not afraid of the embarrassment of Secretaries of State having to change their minds. We are afraid that, having in their judgment permitted local

education authorities to take such steps, they are unlikely to change their minds. Therefore, they could perpetrate changes in school provision which would be contrary to the express wishes and best interests of the local community served by a particular school.

Dr. Boyson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is involved not in this amendment but in the clause. There is a degree of deprivation as we did not discuss this matter in great depth in Committee. Therefore, whatever we say on this matter tonight will have no bearing on the extent of the Lords amendment.
Any Secretary of State must be responsive not only to the requirements of a local education authority but to the opinions of people in the area. Knowing how quickly people's opinions are passed not only to their local councillors but to their Members of Parliament and how quickly those Members send their views to the Department, I cannot envisage a situation whereby a Secretary of State would not be aware if there really were strong feelings in an area.
I have a note which has just descended from heaven, and it may help if I read it so that we can interpret it between us. The note says:
The provision in clause 16(1) allowing for preliminary work to he undertaken repeats a provision already existing in section 13.
This is obviously of great importance to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and me. I think that we both agree on that matter. I cannot envisage the Secretary of State not being responsive to strong feelings in any area in view of our lively democracy and the speed with which Departments are made aware of local opinion and feeling.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17

ASSISTED PLACES AT INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 18, line 28, leave out "it" and insert "the scheme"

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I think that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) will have difficulty on this one, even with the time that we detained the Committee on this matter. However, I must not take that for granted. At any rate, I do not think this matter will worry the Secretary of State.
This is a question of a floating "it". There is an "it" which does not mean anything. No one knows how and why this "it" continued until it came back to us tonight. It is a lesson to us all. I know how carefully the Opposition have looked through every jot and tittle of the Bill. I came away from the Committee stage believing that nothing had been missed by the eagle eye of the Opposition. The Bill went to the other place and the Lords noticed this floating "it"—a lonely, unbalanced and meaningless word. Our desire is to settle the matter now or the word will float for all time like something in outer space. I ask all hon. Members of compassion on both sides to agree that we should sink this "it" and replace it with "the scheme" so that we may bring meaning to this part of the Bill. If we do not, the clause will be the subject of terrible textual analysis and would become a question in O-level and A-level examinations in future years.

Mr. Kinnock: I thought that when the Under-Secretary spoke of a floating "it" in orbit he was committing a grave disloyalty by referring to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). The matter is to be taken up with our resident classics scholar on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), since we shall be forced to call him to account on how he could possibly have missed this floating "it" and the offensive syntax that thereupon arises.
Nevertheless, we note that subsection (8) of the infamous assisted places scheme clause refers to the requirement of the Secretary of State
to consult such bodies as appear to him to be appropriate".
Both Under-Secretaries will recall with clarity and pride the sessions of debate and rigorous analysis which we employed in Committee in our discussions on clause 17.
We made the point then that the requirement in the Bill that the Secretary of State shall
consult such bodies as appear to him to be appropriate
provided an inadequate safeguard for those local education authorities whose whole planning of secondary school admission and, indeed, planning of primary school curricula could be detrimentally affected by the introduction of an assisted places scheme in their areas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. "It" is only a small word, and I do not think that that entitles the hon. Gentleman to cover the whole of clause 17.

Mr. Kinnock: Mr. Kinnock I would not dare to attempt that, not even at this time of night, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am expressing these views precisely in relation to subsection (8), and since the"it"is, as the Under-Secretary said, a matter of orbital, not to say interplanetary, significance, it seems appropriate to consider the implications of the subsection, which imposes on the Secretary of State a very loose duty to undertake certain consultations.

The case I am putting is in order—I hope—because of the reference in Lords amendment No. 15 to the substance of the subsection. I hope that that is the case, because the last thing I want to do as we move towards Easter, of all times, is to offend the Chair.

In Committee we expressed grave reservations about the looseness of the obligation. Similar reservations were expressed by the Society of Education Officers, by the local education authorities and by other bodies and organisations concerned about the possibility, which we consider to be strong and definite, of assisted places scheme pupils being creamed out of the maintained schools system.

We are bound to wonder, too, since the subsection refers directly to consultations, whether the bodies that the Secretary of State would consider it "appropriate" to consult would include the National Children's Bureau. Mrs. Shirley Williams, when she was Secretary of State, initiated a survey and in the light of that the bureau came to certain conclusions which were provided in draft form to the Secretary of State as long ago as November. Its findings had a direct reference


to the ability of secondary schools in the maintained sector to cater for the needs of children of above-average ability. The publication, even in a digest form, of those findings would have been of considerable use to us in our deliberations and to bodies of opinion outside Parliament wishing to form a perspective of the assisted places scheme. I hope that after further deliberation the Secretary of State will deem it appropriate to consult the National Children's Bureau or similar research bodies.

Dr. Boyson: Never has the word "it" been stretched as it has this evening.
Consultation is taking place on the assisted places scheme with local education authorities and schools. The National Children's Bureau—or the NCB—should not be confused with the National Coal Board. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will consult the bureau. The word "it" is to come out and for all time the words "the scheme" will take its place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22

SCHOOL MEALS: ENGLAND AND WALES

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 20, line 24, leave out from "such" to end of line 26 and insert—
facilities as the authority consider appropriate for the consumption of any meals or other refreshment brought to the school by such pupils.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to discuss Lords amendment No. 18.

Mr. Macfarlane: The amendment provides that it is for the local authority to decide on appropriate facilities for children to eat their own food on school premises. Without the amendment, there could be dispute about how far local authorities should go in providing facilities. A local authority must provide suitable accommodation but is not required to provide cooking facilities. In certain circumstances it might be appropriate to make arrangements for storing

food, but that is for the authority to decide.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) for not wishing to move his amendment to the Lords amendment. He will acknowledge that certain factors could be attached to his proposition.

Mr. Kinnock: I did not move my amendment because of the implications. We considered our opposition to the amendment to be more a matter of principle than of detail.
This is one of the most serious amendments to come from the Lords. It has not had the publicity which was attached to Lords amendment No. 17, which caused something of a sensation. We were led to believe during deliberations on clause 22 that the changes would place upon local authorities an absolute statutory obligation to provide pupils who brought their own refreshments or food to school with facilities for consuming that food on the premises. That was the safeguard offered. That was the undertaking and the reassurance. It was supposed to blunt fears that, given the power not to provide school meals, local authorities would interpret that provision literally and not even provide facilities for meals or refreshments on the premises.
Although our fears and the fear of people outside were not abated by the reassurances of the Government, at least they were written into the Bill. Unless we have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of Lords amendment No. 16, it appears that the force of the obligatory word "shall" at the beginning of clause 22(1)(b) is neutralised by the words
as the authority consider appropriate for the consumption of any meals
which appear in the amendment.
In clause 22(2)—I use it only for the purpose of illustration—we have the phrase
as appears to the authority to be requisite.
This caused a great deal of dissension, and counsel's opinion was taken by the Child Poverty Action Group and others as to the implication of that phrase. Exhaustive consideration could also be given to the phrase
as the authority consider appropriate".
I understand what the Under-Secretary has said. In his opinion, it is substantially


a matter of the kind of accommodation that should be provided by a local education authority, and he has no qualms about saying that the authority will be expected to provide accommodation. He said that in very definite terms. As he said, it is very much a local authority matter—and I believe I quote him precisely. It is also up to the local education authority to decide whether to provide facilities for additional refreshments, such as a drink of water, or for the storage of food.
I do not want to be unduly harsh but a few examples have been accumulating in recent weeks of LEAs that are being over-zealous—I use no stronger term—in their interpretation of the new freedoms that the Government have given them under the Bill. Some local authorities have extended those freedoms to the point where they have become dead liberties. I have in mind Kent, Surrey and, to some extent East Sussex. East Sussex has applied the freedoms that the Government proffered to it in the Bill and has even anticipated those freedoms before the Bill has received Royal Assent.
The LEAs, under their present control, not just their political control—their "philosophical tendency" is the phrase that would be used if they were Labour controlled, but perhaps the Conservative Party does not have tendencies—are given the freedom to decide what is appropriate and have no obligation to serve the interests of the community other than very general obligations. The members of the local community have no power under the Bill to say to the Secretary of State "Would you come and help us because the interpretation of the word of the law by our LEA has been much too literal? It has let it be known that it does not consider it appropriate to provide a decently lit, heated and hygienic room that is kept clean and swept daily." In Kent, of course, the pupils will have to sweep the room themselves.
Members of the community have no power to say to the Secretary of State that they do not have facilities for liquid refreshment or for storage of food. Such sophistications are beyond their wildest dreams—"Our local authority does not even consider it appropriate to provide facilities for the consumption of meals."

That would happen because the clause, as amended, would read
shall provide such facilities as the authority consider appropriate for the consumption of any meals or of other refreshment brought to the school by pupils.
The onus has moved and become much more a matter of the will, whim or predilection of the local education authority. It is no longer one in which the right of pupils or, indeed, parents are upheld. Compared with this amendment, the original form of words was strongly preferable. I find it difficult to understand—even given the view of the Minister that all power should be given to these latter-day soviets and that the local authorities should be complete masters in their own domain—why the form of words in clause 22 (1) (b) which caused no problem earlier should have been amended in this way.
11.30 pm
I hope that we may have further explanation on this point, because it will cause consternation and concern among those bodies and pupils who will be relying upon a satisfactory standard of provision of facilities for the consumption of snack meals, sandwiches or whatever on school premises.

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has raised a number of points, with which I shall try to deal as briefly as I can. I am surprised at the hon. Member's sudden turnabout within the past 18 months or so. He said that the Socialist Party was one which had tendencies. He certainly had some tendencies 18 months or so ago when he was one of the most indefatigable antidevolvers in the House. Now he is showing signs of not wishing to devolve any powers to local authorities.
The Conservative Party is the party of principles. I hope that I shall be able to convince some Labour Members that this amendment from their Lordships is worthy of acceptance. The hon. Member for Bedwellty and I have often clashed over the question of how one should view the role and responsibilities and commitments of local education authorities and school teachers. I do not believe that the local authorities or the school teachers are irresponsible. It is in their social interests and in the interests of the whole community that they provide these


facilities and control the way in which food is consumed on the premises.
Hon. Members have graphically illustrated the problems which can arise if schools do not control pupils during the lunch break. I am confident that this amendment will result in those involved acting authoritatively and responsibly. I have faith in the capacity of head teachers to control pupils during the lunch break.
While the hon. Gentleman has every right to raise a few beacons over some of his fears and to take the opportunity to do a bit of "Conservative bashing" with certain selected local authorities, I am convinced that the head teachers will provide the facilities which they consider appropriate for the consumption of any meals. This question has to be left to the local education authorities. We believe that this clearly includes accommodation, furniture and supervision which will enable pupils to eat in a civilised manner, in suitable conditions, the sandwiches they have brought from home. The duty would not extend to providing facilities, for example, for cooking or heating food. That is straightforward. It is the intention of my Department to provide guidance to local authorities at the appropriate stage.
I hope that with those words—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have read the amendment with some care. Would I be right in supposing that, if the local authority decided that it was inappropriate to provide any such facilities, it would be under no obligation to do so?

Mr. Macfarlane: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 22(1)(b). As amended, it would state clearly that local authorities
shall provide such facilities as the authority consider appropriate".
I would deem that to be an obligation.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the first question for the local authority that of deciding whether it is appropriate or inappropriate? If it decides that it is inappropriate, there is no mandatory obligation.

Mr. Macfarlane: There is. Clause 22(1)(b), as amended, would state that the authority
shall provide such facilities as the authority consider appropriate".
I should have thought that my hon. Friend would take the view that local

education authorities, chairmen of education committees and chief officers of local education authorities would recognise their commitment to pupils to provide facilities. If my hon. Friend takes an opposite view, I think that he is being gravely and unnecessarily critical and disparaging of some extremely responsible people, and I hope that his fears—

Mr. Kinnock: It is a matter of interpretation.

Mr. Macfarlane: It is a matter of interpretation, but I should have thought that, given the social responsibilities of local authorities and local head teachers, hon. Members on both sides of the House could have their fears allayed because of the commitments and responsibilities that exist.

Mr. Kinnock: I had hoped that at this late stage in our consideration of the Bill—indeed, right at the buttock of the Bill—the hon. Gentleman would not employ his favourite stratagem of dodging behind his praise of local education authorities, chief executive officers, headmasters and so on—a view that we share in full—to avoid the question that has been put to him both by myself and by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). Is it not the case that the obligatory "shall", which precedes the subparagraph, is neutralised, neutered, rendered eunuch-like, by the inclusion of the phrase
as the authority consider appropriate"?
Is it not the case also that if the local education authority, for whatever reason, considers it not appropriate to provide facilities in a school, neither the hon. Gentleman, with the best will and with his high motivations, which we share, nor any parent or anybody else will be able to do anything to change the will of that authority by the employment of the law against it, short of excluding the clause from the Bill? Why did not the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to do that now and leave the Bill in its original form?

Mr. Macfarlane: Again, it is a question of interpretation of words. I can understand the concern of my hon. Friend who has raised the matter. One has to look at the phrase
such facilities as the authority consider appropriate".


That is an interpretation of the facilities that will be provided. It may be a classroom, a kind of refectory, a converted refectory, a small dining room or some accommodation on the school premises.

Mr. Kinnock: Or it may be a bicycle shed.

Mr. Macfarlane: I should have thought that that was putting the clock back to some Mid-Glamorgan-type view. I should have thought that the matter was clear, and I hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23

TRANSPORT: ENGLAND AND WALES

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 21, line 14, leave out clause 23.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 19, 25, 26, 27 and 28.

Mr. Carlisle: I shall be brief on these amendments—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that is, if I am allowed to be.
The House will be aware that another place voted to delete clauses 23 and 25. The House will also be aware that on 18 March I informed hon. Members that the Government had decided not to attempt to reintroduce the clauses. The purpose of these amendments is to delete the clauses and to make the necessary consequential changes.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: I make no secret of the fact that I am very resentful at the action of another place, and I say that for three short reasons because we are working against time.

Mr. John Home Robertson: No respect.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not have the cowing respect of the hon. Gentleman for a hereditary Chamber.
The first reason why I resent what has been done is that the other place has thrown out—this is quite the right analogy

in an Education Bill—the baby with the bath water. The other place has thrown out a few admittedly objectionable babies, but it has also thrown out a good deal of bath water and we are back to the two-and three-mile limits, which I think all hon. Members, whatever their views, find objectionable and about which we receive a large number of letters, which are not generally addressed to their Lordships.
We must live with this every day. There were some very good schemes. For brevity, I shall cite merely one. In the part of the county which I represent, a scheme was in preparation and was ready to be brought into operation under which there would be no charge for any child attending any primary school. All the usual exemptions, which are properly regarded by the House as important, would have applied. The exemptions set down by my right hon and learned Friend would have applied. For 28½p a day for the remainder, we would have raised £580,000 in a full year. Frankly, that money must be found from alternative sources. I believe that it was a proper use of resources and a proper use of priorities. It placed the expenditure at the place where it ought to be placed.
Secondly, I am resentful because, in all my modest experience in the House, local education authorities have consistently asked for the freedom which the clause gave them in part. The trouble was that a very small number of them abused it. If ever there was an undertaker for this clause, it was the Conservative leaders in the county of Kent. The warning is extremely clear, and my party had better take it very much to heart, because there is a warning for us in this episode. If one operates a policy, or gives the appearance of operating it, in an extreme way, one incurs reaction and resentment from a great weight of middle opinion. That middle opinion must be taken along with any Government who anticipate, as we confidently anticipate, governing the nation for a considerable number of years. I give the briefest of examples so as not to stray out of order. There are lessons in that with regard to employment policy and so on.
Thirdly, I am resentful and sad because I think that the opposition in some quarters was conducted with a stridency which was not appropriate for the occasion. It


was conducted with an assumption which was not valued—the assumption that in 1944 a settlement was made which was absolute and which had not been altered on either side. As I have said before, three times within the last 21 years the crucial part of that settlement, which is the capital ratio between Churches and State, has been altered. It was altered rightly, with good will and by Governments of different political colours. On the last two occasions, in 1967 and 1975, with other hon. Members I was very close to the negotiations which led up to it.
Those compacts were changed because conditions had changed, money had lost its value and the State understood and recognised that there should be changes. Yet when the State, for equally valid reasons and with the same kind of background, sought to make changes, that was denied.
My real anxiety is that when once again the Churches approach the State—I do not believe that it is "if", in a modern, inflationary age; I believe that it is "when"—some of them will find that their stridency has considerably prejudiced their case. I mean that very deeply. What we are seeing today is an example of a battle being won but a war being lost. In strategic terms, I believe that the decision is very short-sighted.
11.45 pm
My hope is that we shall make a considerable change. I shall draw the House's attention to a most remarkable speech on this matter by the Duke of Norfolk. The rules of the House do not permit me to quote it verbatim. He told the House of Lords that he would use the language of the barrack room, acquired over 30 years. He then used very quiet words, so I think that the barrack rooms in which he lived were not those that I experienced as a young man. He said that he hoped he could say "Roll on Christian schools". I think that that will be the way in which it will work. We shall see the denominational schools making way for schools of all denominations combined.
I wish to make a small constructive suggestion. The political reality of what we are seeing tonight is that no Government of any colour will touch this subject again in the foreseeable future. All politicians have burnt their fingers on this issue, and there is now a deadlock.
Why not let us see whether the House, which has put us in this position, might not, by its membership, have the ability to assist the nation to see its way through? Would it be possible for some distinguished Member of another place—there are many such persons with experience and education—to bring together a grouping, crossing party lines? Perhaps out of that grouping could come a solution to a state of affairs that we simply cannot leave as it is. I accept without question that, given the political realities at the time, there was no other alternative open to the Secretary of State. I believe that from the start he was right and another place was wrong.

Mr. Kinnock: We have just heard a typically direct, brief and pungent speech from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). There is a great deal in what he says. This could be the time for a certain gleeful celebration, but we must lace heavily our joy about the morale-boosting effect of the Government defeat, which was accomplished with the help of 96 Labour Members of the other place, with concern for the implications of the action which they took.
I think that they took the right action. Indeed, the amendment that they passed was precisely the amendment that we put before the Standing Committee. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of the official Opposition, Liberal Members and one or two courageous Conservative Members, our effort was not sustained. Obviously, I am not critical of what the Lords have done, and I do not join with the hon. Member for Wokingham to that extent.
Despite the expected savings that the hon. Member for Wokingham and his local education authority hoped would be made, the experience of local authorities, with which I have close acquaintance, is that they would have had to make such broad omissions and exemptions from the general rule of imposing charges that their actual savings would have been a fraction of those originally intended.
Those original savings, although fractional, would have been secured at the expense of further fractures in the community. They would have been secured at the expense of further differentiation between those attending denominational schools and those attending others. I know of two cases in which children have attended schools where Welsh was the


medium of expression. Those additional burdens would have had to be borne by the community. In addition, parents would have had to pay charges. Exemptions would have imposed a bureaucratic surcharge on the operation of the scheme.
The proposal would have varied in its effect from area to area, class to class and family to family. However, the proposals contained in the original Education (No. 2) Bill would not have provided the opportunities imagined by the hon. Member for Wokingham. As a student of politics, I warmly applaud the hon. Gentleman's advice to his Front Bench colleagues. As a member of the Labour Party and as a Socialist, I fear that advice. The hon. Gentleman echoes the Lord Privy Seal and other eminences in the Conservative Party when he says that the consensus should not be breached, that the centre should not be offended and that no impression of being didactic or ideological should be given. He implied that peril lay ahead for the Conservative Party if that were done. The hon. Gentleman is correct.
In a partisan sense, I take considerable joy from the type of smash-ups that occur, and will occur, as a result of pursuing an intransigent and uncharacteristically ideological course. Some people have warned of its effect. For the country's sake, I hope that the Government implement that advice. I hope for the sake of the Labour Party that they continue to ignore the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows what I mean.
It was not merely the relationship between Church and State that led to contention in debate on clause 23. Although the noble Lady the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science put up a sterling struggle in the other place, especially in the closing stages of debate on clause 23, she made similar reference to the concordat and to the benefit provided for religious denominations as a result of changes wrought since the enactment of the 1944 Act. I still believe that the most fearsome, effective and telling opposition to clause 23 came from the rural areas. Those who accepted the closure of schools and those who were faced with enormous imposts on the sad level of wages earned in rural communities made their voices heard.
Regardless of which party is in power, I hope that heed will be taken of our experience of clause 23. I hope that the organisations and mobilisation presently in existence will be maintained. Recognition should be given to the fact that the rural community is forceful and articulate. It does not have to obey anyone's will merely because it has been dictated. The interests of the rural communities should be asserted. That has not been done for many years. Perhaps those interests have not been asserted since the days when Rebecca and her hosts rode the turnpike roads of West Wales. Let us hope to have not a "Jacquerie"—although the Government deserve that—but an articulate, effective and assertive rural lobby that will confront any Government. That is good for democracy and for the protection of the countryside and its people. All Governments would then be more cautious about rural interests.
The most important effect of the decision not to leave clause 23 in the Bill, which in general delights me, is the impact on the financial resources available to local education authorities. We have said continually, and I still hold it to be the case, that the savings or additional resources made available to local education authorities as a result of implementing clause 23 would have been much smaller than the estimate in the financial memorandum to the Bill of £30 million in England and Wales and £2 million in Scotland. Had it been even one-half or one-third of that figure, £10 million would still have had to be withdrawn from expenditure in the classroom and associated activities. We always felt that that was unjustifiable and unnecessary. That figure is now more likely to be £30 million.
When the Secretary of State conceded on 18 March that the changes wrought in the House of Lords would have to be acknowledged by the Government in this place, he did not announce that a further subscription was to be made through the rate support grant or in some other form to enable local education authorities to sustain their obligations to provide transport for children who need subsidised or free transport. Even more recently, in the press release published on Budget day and in the accompanying


papers, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
The Government will consider in the course of the 1980 Public Expenditure Survey, in readiness for the 1981–82 RSG settlement, the implications of the decision of the House of Lords on school transport which I accepted in the House of Commons on 18 March.
At the very least, during this financial year there will be £30 million less than expected in the Government's previous public and education expenditure pronouncements.
There is no guarantee that in this year's expenditure survey the Government will have a change of heart and reduce education expenditure—a course on which they are already set—by £30 million less than otherwise. They have acknowledged that it is unfair to anticipate a policy of reducing expenditure, accept defeat and then have to concede not only the wisdom of that majority decision but the financial implications for education.
I plead with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues, as we did on 18 March, that as he has conceded that the proposition has been defeated I give him every thanks and accolade, because he still would have had a majority—the obligation that he takes on is to secure an additional £30 million, so that there is no danger of an even greater cut into the flesh and bone of the education provision. I hope that he will encourage us with news of such efforts or at least indicate that in the course of the expenditure survey in this financial year he will try to convince his right hon. Friends that they should find that additional £30 million.
It is out of order for me to quote the words of another place. It is a quaint custom, and on this occasion it denies the House the ecstatic pleasure of reading the speech of Baroness Young in her concluding remarks in the debate on clause 23. I have whet the appetite of the House, and I hope that I am in order in suggesting that hon. Members should rush out and purchase all remaining copies of the House of Lords Hansard of 13 March and note in columns 1270 and 1271 the remarkable insight provided into the thinking of the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. She holds an entirely responsible opinion. It is a respectable perspective of our society in transition. It is one of the most extraordinary social surveys that I have

ever had the pleasure of reading. I hope that it will be widely read in the House.
12 midnight
I have given the Minister and the Government full credit for facing the realities of what was done in another place on 13 March. I hope that they will now face the realities of our education system and ensure that people shall not pay as a result of this decision.
My final point arises from the remarks of the hon. Member for Wokingham. He said that, having seen one Government burn their fingers on the vexed subject of school transport, he was sure that no other Government would make the attempt. I hope to contradict that by demonstrating that the policy of the Labour Party—which we enunciated in our manifesto at the last election—is to ensure that there are no demarcations of treatment between people living on one side of the border and people living on the other. We acknowledged the heavy cost of school transport, even over relatively short distances, and the necessity of transport to school because of the hazardous conditions on our roads. I hope that we can honour that commitment at some future date. It seems to be the only sensible way, in justice, in which we can make developments in the absolute guarantee and assurance that children can travel to school in as great safety as the local authority and the State can guarantee and at as low a cost as possible—and, therefore, the least disincentive—to parents.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Was it not the proposal of the Labour Party, when in Government, to introduce flat-rate charges for transport to school?

Mr. Kinnock: When Labour was in Government, that was among the proposals. We referred to that in Committee. I do not think that that proposal was ever put in any precise form, and certainly it was not promoted as part of the legislation.
The Labour Party policy which preceded or superseded—that is a matter for debate—that proposition was a development of that and a movement towards the provision of free school transport where necessary. I shall not make any promises from the Dispatch Box that would be idle gestures. We have considered the matter on other questions arising from the Bill. Whether it is the Conservative Party or


the Labour Party that brings this about, the necessities of our modern, crowded society—with its dangerous roads, with communities that are becoming increasingly isolated, with falling school rolls and with a concentration and rationalisation of schools and school population—will continue to impose on any Government an obligation to ensure that children are able to travel to school at costs that are not only not prohibitive but are conducive to the involvement and assistance of parents in taking their children to school.
That requirement will eventually boil down to the provision of free school transport. I hope that it will be found out of a Vote other than the education Vote. That is a campaign on which we can join hands across the Table. Nevertheless, that will be the only way in which this continuing dilemma, which is becoming harsher by the year, will ever be resolved.

Mr. Home Robertson: I was ex-extremely pleased to hear what I think was a clear undertaking from my hon. Friend the Member for Beclwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that in due course a Labour Government will be in a position to provide free school transport for every pupil who needs it, whether in rural areas or elsewhere. I was grateful to my hon. Friend for the tribute that he paid to the campaign that was waged in the rural areas of the United Kingdom to preserve the existing degree of free school transport. A strong campaign was mounted throughout the United Kingdom. It is ironic that the representatives of the overwhelming majority of rural families who sit on the Conservative Benches let down their constituents. Those families had to rely on another place to protect their interests.
I was delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) was not cowed by the ideas of those in another place. If he had as many members of another place residing in his constituency as I have in mine, he might pay more attention to them. I had the genuine privilege not long ago of taking part in a meeting of the Royal British Legion in my constituency, at which Lord Haig of Bemersyde, a constituent of mine whom my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire

(Mr. Canavan) frequently quotes, was present. I paid tribute to the noble Lord in public on that occasion for his vote in the proceedings in another place. He took the opportunity to protect the interests of those in rural areas.
I am not in the habit of detaining the House at this time of night, especially when a number of Scottish hon. Members have trains to catch, but I have been goaded into contributing to the debate by a half-witted reply today from the Secretary of State for Scotland. Two weeks ago I tabled a question to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what amount he had reduced the rate support grant to the Borders regional council and Lothian regional council for 1980–81 as a result of his decision on school transport. It appeared as question No. 25 on the Order Paper. As a result of the verbosity of some of my hon. Friends, some Conservative Members and Ministers, the question was not reached. In due course I received a written answer to tell me that the deletion of clause 25 of this Bill would not result in any reduction of rate support grant.
I said that that was a half-witted reply, and I meant precisely that. How could the deletion lead to any further reduction of the rate support grant? The reduction had already taken place. It had taken place in all local education authorities throughout the United Kingdom. It had taken place in the Lothian regional council, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, probably knows better than I do because the whole of his constituency lies within that council. As many hon. Members will know, the council had decided, in common with all local education authorities in Scotland bar one, not to impose school transport charges.
It may interest the House if I refer to the one local education authority in Scotland which decided to impose school transport charges, which includes a part of my constituency, namely, the Borders regional council. I quote what the convener of the council said in a press statement. Major Jock Askew, the Conservative convener of the council, said:
The Borders Regional Council is faced with having to consider a rate of 63p, an increase of 17p, and at the same time cut its


services. As Convener, I view this situation with the gravest concern. I can appreciate that ratepayers faced with paying substantially more for a reduced service must be both perplexed and angry.
How true. That represented an increase of 37 per cent. on the rates and considerable cuts in public services, including the imposition of a charge for school transport. That appears in the papers that the council circulated, namely, item No. 41:
Introduce a flat rate charge of 10p per day per pupil for transport to and from school £100,000.
I appreciate that that is peanuts compared to the figure that some of their reactionary brethren in the South-East and in the county of Kent have in mind. That is the figure for the Borders. Presumably, considerably more had already been deducted from the rate support grant to the other regional councils within Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are given to understand that the total is about £2 million.
Even if I were to refrain from dwelling on the shortcomings of the Borders regional council, it must be accepted that in anticipation of the implementation of this clause—which has rightly been deleted by the House of Lords—the Secretary of State for Scotland took £100,000 from the Borders regional council. Overall, he has taken over £2 million from all education authorities in Scotland. As a result of the decision, which the Secretary of State has rightly accepted, that £2 million will have to be deducted from other education services in Scotland. That is outrageous.
The Secretary of State has accepted the decision of the House of Lords, and the decision and the will of the people in rural areas. If he accepts that decision, he should also accept that he is duty bound and honour bound to give back the money which he took away prematurely from the local education authorities. I sincerely hope that he will take the opportunity of this debate to make an appropriate announcement.

Mr. Beith: The House of Lords did a grand day's work on this clause. It did so with a combination of Conservative peers, Liberal peers, Labour peers, Cross-Bench peers and bishops. It did it not merely with a decisive majority, but with

a massive majority. In doing so it brought relief to hundreds of thousands of people in Britain, particularly in rural areas where there was real fear about families on wages just above family income supplement level—

Mr. Mark Carlisle: They were egged on by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Beith: Indeed. I am glad that the Secretary of State is saying that the peers were egged on by us.

Mr. Carlisle: I said that the fear was egged on by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who deliberately and persistently exaggerated, totally without regard to the provisions I included. I remember a speech in which he talked about figures which had no relationship whatever to the sort of figures that were being requested. That is fear-mongering by the Liberal Party.

Mr. Beith: They were the figures of the Kent county council. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has already described the mess into which the Kent county council put the Secretary of State by putting flesh on the bone, quoting figures and bringing them before the—

Mr. Carlisle: In that speech—which I remember well—the hon. Gentleman did not mention Kent once. He talked about people living in his constituency and the appalling amounts that the council would have to charge at a time when it said that it would not charge anything. He was responsible for any fear that was created by the intentions of the Government—not the Government's proposals. That is the sort of propaganda put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Beith: The propaganda was entirely true. I suppose that the Secretary of State is now saying that I misled Lord Butler, the Duke of Norfolk, half the bishops, and the majority of Conservative peers. The Conservative peers, with the aid of the Liberal peers, would not have needed the 96 Labour peers who voted in the House of Lords for what I am advocating. There were enough Conservative peers—misled by people such as myself—who pointed to the effects of these proposals.
My county council was one of the first to say that it wanted nothing to do with


those provisions. It did not wish to implement them. The Secretary of State cannot say that it would have been all right in the hon. Member's constituency because the county council was refusing to do what I told it to do. Because it had extensive school transport obligations, it would have had to cut far more services than other authorities in order to satisfy that requirement. I welcomed my county council's decision, but it was not made thanks to the Secretary of State. The council was acting directly against his advice.
12.15 am
The fears were real. They were based on the charges that could have been imposed—not only in my constituency but in many other parts of the country where the threat was made by some local authorities—upon families whose incomes were marginally above the family income supplement and supplementary benefit level. Those charges could have been enormous.
It took a long time before we had the concession that the charges must be uniform. That did not come out at the beginning. It was wrenched out of the Government. It was not until the Bill went to another place that there was the concession that not all the children of large families would be affected. Never during the passage of the Bill through this House did any Minister say "We are prepared to make a concession. Only two children will be affected." The Government had to see the peers chasing them before they made a concession. The charges could still have mounted up to a high level for families with two children.
Great relief is felt by rural families, especially families that had gone through the whole traumatic business of having village primary schools closed, with the result that their children had to go further away, and families that had gone through secondary reorganisation, not simply in the past few years but throughout the years since the war, involving their children in travelling 15, 20 or even 25 miles to school, with the parents being expected to pay for that privilege.
The amendment has also brought considerable relief to the Roman Catholic community. Here I entirely dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Woking-ham. He may think that when people

genuinely state their objections and anxieties in strong terms they are being strident. I do not find such expressions in any way objectionable. No letter or other representation that I received from the Roman Catholic community could be criticised in any way for having been other than a genuine expression of concern about the implications of the Bill. I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman's view that it is somehow improper for people to express their views in those terms.
Perhaps in the clubland of London or the higher reaches of society there are discreet and polite ways of gently tipping the wink, saying "This isn't on, old boy. It's not quite the thing." But Roman Catholics in my constituency and in other parts of the country speak their mind in simple and straightforward terms. They said that they saw the proposals as a threat to their schools, and that view was strongly held throughout the Roman Catholic community—parents, teachers, headmasters and clergy. They put it to us honestly and straightforwardly. Some Members disagreed with that view, but nobody challenged people's right to put it, and it carried a great deal of weight in another place.
A number of hon. Members have said tonight that the Government must make up the money. I am not sure that I go all the way with that. My own local authority was among the first to be prepared to face up to making cuts elsewhere, and I must recognise that it was possible to do that. But at every stage when we argued with the Government about the assisted places scheme they said "If we dropped the scheme the money would not come back to education. It comes out of some other fund, a special new fund for projects that we really like. There is access there to funds that are not generally otherwise available to education."
I have never been able to understand the philosophy that there is a special kind of money that can be obtained from elsewhere. However, the Government have waived it at us often enough. It is time we waved it back at them. If they can pluck money out of the air for the assisted places scheme, they can mitigate the impact of the sensible and necessary decision that school transport must continue to be provided.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There are two important criticisms to be made of the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). First, the Liberal Party goes on emphasising through the country the importance of local government. I agree. It says that this, that and another thing should be left to the discretion of local authorities. I agree about that, too. What I find astonishing is that the hon. Gentleman seeks to reconcile that general view with his virulent attack on clause 23.
The clause did one thing, and one thing only. It empowered local authorities to charge. I happen to believe that, generally speaking, they should not charge. I was very pleased that the Lincolnshire county council decided not to do so. But I also think that this is precisely the kind of area in which local authorities should have a discretion. If we are to have local authorities, it is very important that decisions of great consequence be left to them. I do not think that it is possible to reconcile the hon. Gentleman's remarks with the general principles that the Liberal Party purports to profess.
The other point that I want to make is this.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: What about council house sales?

Mr. Hogg: I shall deal with that matter in another debate—not tonight, because time is short. I shall deal with it when the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) intervenes in a proper way, and not until then.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way when the hon. Gentleman intervenes in a proper way, and I am referring to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire, who is sitting down. As he is incapable of intervening in a proper way, I do not propose to deal with the point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: No.
The second point that I should like to make on the speech made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed concerns his suggestion that the position of the Roman Catholic church was justi-

fled. I think that he was wrong. If one goes back to the Education Act 1944, one sees that the only obligation on local authorities was to transport pupils to the nearest appropriate school. The denominational schools to which most pupils were being transported for free were not the nearest appropriate schools in all cases. The local authorities could, in the majority of cases, refuse to transport those pupils. In fact, the local authorities, exercising an undoubted discretion, chose to transport those pupils for free. I have no reason to suppose that that policy would have changed as a result of anything in clause 23.

Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene.
The position has been made worse, because, as the local authorities are going to find it difficult to raise money as a result of the deletion of clause 23, they may stand on their undoubted statutory right to decline to transport pupils to denominational schools if they do not happen to be the nearest appropriate schools. That was the second area in which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made a major mistake. Because I am a courteous fellow, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Beith: Three-quarters of what the hon. Gentleman said is correct, and the Roman Catholic community knows it very well. Most of the transport of Roman Catholic children to school is at present discretionary. But what the hon. Gentleman neglects to understand is that if local authorities were charging to convey non-Catholic children to the nearest appropriate school, it would be virtually impossible for those same local authorities to continue to provide free transport for Roman Catholic children to schools at a similar distance from their homes.

Mr. Hogg: I disagree. I must tell the hon. Gentleman what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State told him. The Catholic community did not appreciate the true position. One reason why it did not appreciate the true position was the speeches made by Opposition Members who repeatedly misled people as to the true statutory position.


The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire, who is sitting on his backside at the moment, has a great deal to answer for on this particular point.

Mr. Canavan: It is perhaps a measure of this extremist and reactionary Government when the Department of Education and Science and the Scottish Education Department try to take up a position which is even more Right-wing than the Right-wing House of Lords.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland ought to be thoroughly ashamed to be members of a Government who had to be forced and almost kicked by the House of Lords into the position in which they are now. I think that we can all thank the grand old Duke of Norfolk to get this nasty clause deleted from this nasty Bill. It appeared that there was agreement across party lines in the other place. Indeed, many of the friends of Conservative Members voted against them in the other place. I think that one of the junior Ministers, who has a smile on his face, is grateful that the House of Lords let the Government off the hook on this matter.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the vote in the other place simply underlines the fact that the Members of that place are no more than running dogs and lackeys of Conservative Central Office?

Mr. Canavan: I never ever said that they were. If the hon. Gentleman reads my speeches criticising the House of Lords—especially those I made during the lifetime of the last Parliament—he will see that I never described them in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has just used. Perhaps even I may take back some of the things I said about them. I may even postpone bringing forward my next Private Member's Bill to abolish the other place.
However, it is quite clear that on this crucial issue there were a minority of courageous Members of the Tory Party in this House—the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey), for example, and one of his benighted hon. Friends whose constituency I cannot recall—who led the

attack against their party here. Most of the lapdogs obeyed the three-line Whip when they voted. However, Members in another place decided to take a strong line on the matter. It was quite clear that it was not just the Tory Party that was divided on this issue. Families were divided. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), for example, voted in this place for the retention of the clause, whereas his father the Marquess of Lothian and his uncle-in-law the Duke of Norfolk voted for the deletion of the clause in the other place.
I noticed on checking the Division list that the father of the Secretary of State for Scotland did not even turn up to support his son. I do not know whether that was a conscientious abstention. It may have been that Viscount Younger had been persuaded by the eloquence of his local Member of Parliament, because he happens to live in my constituency. I used to ask "Can anything good come out of the House of Lords?" This was one good result which did.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr van Straubenzee) referred to anomalies which occur under the existing legislation and which will continue because of the two and three mile limits which have been restored. The hon. Member for—Hailsham, is it?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Grantham.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Member foz Grantham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the desirability of giving a certain amount of discretion to local authorities. There is no contradiction between the two. One can lay down a national statutory minimum while giving local authorities a discretion to be more generous. That is precisely what the two Labour-controlled education authorities in my constituency—Strathclyde and Central regional councils—do. The former, for example, imposes a limit of one mile for all primary schoolchildren and two miles for all secondary schoolchildren. There is, therefore, no contradiction there, and I look forward to hearing the hon. Member's justification for his rather ambivalent stance in wanting to give discretion to local authorities on school transport but not on the sale of council houses.
In general, I think that those local authorities, the churches the National


Farmers Union and the trade unions, expecially those representing the workers in rural areas, ought to be congratulated on their campaign. It was reasonable. The adjective "strident" has been used. Sometimes one has to be strident in this place, and even in the other place, to attain one's objectives.
12.30 am
I turn now to another important matter—and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for education, has not yet fallen asleep. The Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1979 states:
Provision for education is 4½2 per cent. in real terms less than the coresponding figure for 1979–80. It has been assumed that authorities will be able to effect substantial savings in expenditure on school meals, school milk and school transport as a consequence of the increased freedom that they will have in providing and charging for these services under the Education (No. 2) Bill now before Parliament.
That wording was misleading. Instead of "increased freedom", the Government should have talked about deprivation of children's rights to free school transport. That is no longer applicable. There has been a change of circumstances. The Bill, as proposed by the Government when the rate support grant was approved by the House, has been substantially amended. It affects the rate support grant.
The financial memorandum states that the amount that the Government hoped to cut or save by removing children's legal rights to free school transport in Scotland was £2 million. That means that the Government should now introduce a supplementary rate support grant order for Scotland providing at least an extra £2 million. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Committee on the Bill, does not realise the position. As usual, the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) was mistaken about his constituency. Before the Lords amended the Bill all Scottish local authorities had made it clear that they would not charge. I presume that they therefore adjusted their 1980–81 budgets accordingly. In those circumstances, there is no need for an alteration to be made to the rate support grant for this year.

Mr. Canavan: Nevertheless, the total rate support grant to the Scottish local authorities was calculated on the assumption that £2 million would be cut. Now the legal obligation is to be continued, the rate support grant should be increased by at least £2 million to enable local authorities to fulfil their statutory obligation.
The Ministers will say that no money is left in the kitty. Earlier this week was the closing date for submissions on that tatty document on the assisted places scheme. There is little if any support in Scotland for that silly scheme on which he proposes to spend £5 million a year. Let us scrap the assisted places scheme and find at least £2 million in rate support grant so that local authorities can continue to provide free school transport.

Mr. Harry Ewing: rose—

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Not the hon. Gentleman as well.

Mr. Ewing: The Secretary of State is not entitled to say that, because the Scottish Office played little or no part in the debate, in spite of three major clauses in the Bill which refer to Scotland. It is not right to slip Scottish clauses into a Bill and complain when Scottish shadow spokesmen and hon. Members take part in a debate. It is not up to the Secretary of State's usual standard to complain about our contribution to a debate. That is out of character.
I shall direct most of my remarks to the deletion of clause 25 but I shall say something about the debate so far. There is a feeling that we should debate all over again whether local authorities should have discretion to grant free transport or whether a statutory obligation should be placed upon them.
The effect of the deletion of clauses 23 and 25 is to leave local education authorities in England, Wales and Scotland with the statutory obligation to provide school transport within certain limits. Beyond those limits they have discretion. I take it that the House is not engaged in a debate about the principle.
What surprised me was that when the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van


Straubenzee) was making what I regarded as a courageous speech—I did not agree with it, but I regarded it as courageous—the Secretary of State kept nodding in agreement and apparently saying "Hear, hear." If that is so, it leads us to the clear conclusion that the Government simply have not had the courage to overturn a decision of the other place which is not acceptable to them.
Instead of having the courage to overturn that decision, the Government are saying in the most generous terms they can muster that they will accept it but will not provide the money—as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. Canavan) said—to implement their acceptance.
When clauses 23 and 25 are taken out of the Bill, there will be a statutory obligation on LEAs throughout Great Britain to provide free school transport. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is imposing that obligation by virtue of the fact that he is accepting the decision of the other place. There can be no ifs or buts about that. As a result of that acceptance, the Secretary of State is saying "I shall still go ahead and punish the LEAs, and I will not give them the money."

Mr. Beith: Before the hon Member develops his argument on the financial point, may I ask whether he has not been intrigued, as I have been, by the fact that since the Lords defeat the Government have kept saying "All we were trying to do was to give the LEAs what they asked for—the freedom to charge for school transport and relieve them of the statutory obligation"? I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland this week whether the removal of the statutory obligation to provide free school transport was done at the request of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and I got a one word answer—"No".

Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The simple fact is that there is nothing in the Bill in relation to Scotland that has been done with the agreement of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. As the Minister knows, the Convention is strongly opposed to the Government's provisions on school meals,

milk and transport. The Bill has no friends in Scotland, and the Minister well knows it.
That brings me to the financial aspect, and I shall relate my remarks exclusively to clause 25. I get the feeling that the Minister simply does not understand the rate support grant in Scotland. He certainly does not understand the Education (No. 2) Bill. The rate support grant settlement was not agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; it was imposed on Scottish local authorities. In that rate suport grant settlement imposed on Scottish local authorities, there was a reduction of £2 million to take account of the Government's decision to abolish free school transport.
I take it that the Minister accepts that the explanatory and financial memorandum says that £2 million less will be made available because the Government have decided—it is in corporated in the Bill—that free school transport for children should not now be available but should be at the discretion of the local authority.
I shall take the Secretary of State through this stage by stage. Does he accept that £2 million less will be made available? I have to spell it out in simple terms for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Having taken him through the first stage—that the rate suport grant settlement leaves £2 million less available to the Scottish local authorities because he decided that free school transport should be a discretionary aspect of education at the disposal of the education authorities in Scotland—I should tell him that the position has now changed. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is that Ministers have changed their minds. Whereas, before, school transport was to be discretionary, it is now mandatory. I take it that the Minister agrees with that. That is the implication of accepting the amendments from the other place.
If the Minister accepts that the provision of free school transport is now mandatory and that there is a statutory obligation upon local authorities in Scotland to provide this, his decision has been changed. He is, therefore, under an obligation to restore to the Scottish local authorities the £2 million. If he does not do so, basically he is stealing £2 million


from the local authorities in Scotland in respect of school transport.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), the Minister said that the arrangements made no difference to the budget plans of the regional authorities. That is misleading, to say the least. It is not true and the Minister knows it. Of course, the authorities budgeted on the basis that they would not have the £2 million. But they did so on the advice given by the Scottish Office that free school transport would no longer be available. That is not what the Minister is now saying. He is saying to local authorities in Scotland that, as a result of the decision in the other place, free school transport is a statutory obligation, but the Government will not give back the £2 million which they took away when they thought that school transport provision would be discretionary. There is no dispute about that.
Earlier today, the Minister sought to answer questions about a reduction in rate support grant to various Scottish authorities. The question was not about the effect of the deletion of clause 25 from the Bill, and the Minister knows that. He is an expert at not answering questions. He knows that the question was about the reduction in rate support grant. We shall press him and we shall find out—whether he wants to tell us or not—how much each of the Scottish regional authorities is having stolen from it by him as a result of the Government's refusal to restore the rate support grant.
While I join my hon. Friends in welcoming the decision of the other place, I do so, not with regret but certainly with mixed feelings, because I wish that the other place had had the courage to take matters to a logical conclusion and remove the provision inserted by the Government concerning school meals and school milk. The other place, while it has done us a service in one respect, has done us a disservice in another. It could have made a major contribution. We owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Butler, to whom I freely give thanks. I wish that the other place had deleted those other provisions.
The Secretary of State is about to reply. I can understand his touchiness. No one likes to receive the humiliating defeat

which he has had to suffer on this clause. I hope that, in replying, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will complete the answer he gave to us on 18 March and tell the House and local authorities throughout Great Britain that he accepts the decision fully, that he will not punish local authorities and will restore the rate support grant, and that he will also ensure that common sense prevails in the Scottish Office so that the rate support grant is restored in Scotland, too.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I start by apologising to the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) for what I said when he got to his feet. It was not that I objected to his intervening as a Scottish Shadow Minister. It was merely that there had been one speech from the Opposition Bench and I did not realise that we were to have two. If the hon. Member felt that I was discourteous to him, I apologise.
Perhaps there is one thing to be said for this matter. If it means that, for the first time, Labour Members are ready to accept the importance of a bicamarel legislature, some good will come out of the decision made by the Lords.
12.45 am
I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) for the support that he attempted to give me on this clause throughout the passage of the Bill through this place and for his speech tonight. I regret the decision that was made in the other place. I made that clear at the time, and I made it clear in my statement when I said that, nevertheless, the Government, being realistic and seeing the size and composition of the majority in the other place, thought that the only right thing to do was to accept the decision. The fact that one accepts the decision does not mean that one necessarily believes that the other place was right, and, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham gave, I regret the decision that it took.
The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth spoke about the penalty on local authorities. His hon. Friends the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) demanded that I should put back into the rate support grant the money that had been allowed for to provide school trans-


port. I must repeat what I said quite clearly in my statement on 18 March in accepting the decision taken by another place. The fact that it is not now open to local authorities to make savings in this way in no way withdraws from them the need to make savings in their education budgets.
The Government made it clear at an early stage last summer that they would look for savings in public expenditure because they were essential in the public interest. We believed that it was right that in looking for those savings local authorities should have the opportunity, if they wished, to make part of those savings by bringing in charges for school transport. Parliament has decided that that option is no longer open to them, but that does not mean that those savings do not still have to be made. The rate support grant has been fixed, the cash limits have been fixed, and the fact that this is a matter for local authorities is confirmed by the fact that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) agreed that several counties had decided to make the savings that we were looking for in other ways.
Local authorities have always realised that we were looking for savings of a certain percentage in their budgets and that it was up to them to decide how they were made, but many of them asked that in looking for those savings they should be able to look for them in transport provision. So it is not a question of penalising them. It is not a question of putting money back. They recognise that the savings that have to be made will have to be made in ways that do not include modest charging for transport.
I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). It is extraordinary that the Liberal Party, which seems to support the concept of giving more power to local authorities and is always arguing for the devolving of power to local authorities, objected to a principle when this occurred. I can only assume that the principle of devolution to local authorities was outweighed by the principle that Labour Members did not want to support anything that might be unpopular with the electorate.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who, unfortunately, has left the Chamber

—I know why he has had to leave—said that he was glad to hear the clear undertaking by his hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty that the Labour Party was now committed to free school transport for all. I did not think that the hon. Member for Bedwellty was quite as clear as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian thought he was. I thought that the undertaking was hedged around with ifs and buts and "I should like to say but I really cannot quite."
If that was a commitment by the Opposition, the hon. Member for Bedwellty might like to reflect on the cost of it. The cost of school transport in the current year is likely to be £125 million, and it benefits only one of 10 families. If one considers for a moment the cost of providing free transport for the other 90 per cent. of children, I think that the hon. Gentleman—if he gave that clear undertaking, which I rather doubt—may live to regret the fact that he did so.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I have sat down.

Mr. Kinnock: I have wanted to put a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to put a brief question to the Secretary of State before he sat down, and I wonder whether I can ask it during our discussion on clause 25.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): We have not reached that stage yet.

Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clause 26

NURSERY EDUCATION: ENGLAND AND WALES

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 25, line 42, after "8" insert "(1)(a)".

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a purely technical drafting amendment. The clause at present refers to
section 8 of the Education Act 1944".


The amendment makes it clear that the reference is to section 8 (1) (a). The amendment was first moved by a Member of another place in pursuant of greater clarity, and the Government accepted it in the spirit in which it was offered. I do not think that this is a contentious matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 21 agreed to.

Clause 31

PROVISION OF CLOTHING FOR PHYSICAL TRAINING ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 29, line 28, after "years" insert
(other than a registered pupil at a school)".

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I think that hon. Members who served on the Committee will recognise that there was some discussion in another place with regard to who should be liable for payment for PT clothing provided that a person is over 18. That power is given under section 5(6) of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948. The regulations made under that Act limit the amounts which can be recovered to whatever can be afforded without financial hardship.
The Government considered it right that the parent should continue to be liable so long as the recipient of the clothing was a registered pupil at the school. In other cases of over-18s, it would be the recipient himself who would be liable to be asked to pay if the authority considered it appropriate to do so. There was much debate on this, and I am sure that the House will agree that the amendment should be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36

DEFINITION AND REGISTRATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 32, line 39, after "under" insert "subsection (1) of".

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Like amendment No. 20, this is a purely technical amendment. Clause 36 refers to section 70 of the 1944 Act. The amendment makes it clear that the reference is to section 70(1).

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2

SCHOOL ADMISSION APPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 40, line 44, leave out "simple majority vote" and insert
a simple majority of the votes cast and in the case of an equality of votes the chairman of the committee shall have a second or casting vote".

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
We discussed the amendment in Committee for quite a long time. Looking back, I remind the House of several things which were said. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who is not with us tonight, said that there should be a casting vote in the case of a conflict. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who played a big part in our Committee discussions, similarly pressed for a casting vote. All the amendment does is to state that where there has to be a majority vote, obviously on the decision of the appeal, the chairman shall have a right to a second or casting vote.
We said in Committee that we would look at this again, and in another place this amendment was moved. We should be able to achieve a degree of unanimity on this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 28 agreed to.

LIMITATION AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queens Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent,


on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

MEDICAL FACILITIES (EUROPEAN RECIPROCITY)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Bernard Conlan: The circumstances of the case that I wish to bring to the attention of the House tonight highlight what I consider to be a serious anomaly within the rules governing reciprocal medical treatment between this country and the other countries of the EEC.
The specific case concerns 13-year-old Siobhan Jernskaw, who plans to spend the Easter holidays in Italy with a party of children and teachers from the St. John Fisher school in Gateshead, where she is a pupil.
During the preparations for the holiday it was discovered that Siobhan, for reasons which I shall explain, was not eligible for, or covered by, health care in Italy in the same way as the other children and the teachers. In view of this, I understand that at one stage Siobhan's continued inclusion in the party was in grave doubt. On my advice, she obtained private insurance cover which will meet the cost of any medical treatment that may be required while she is in Italy with her school friends. The disappointment of missing the holiday has been prevented, but this girl, at a tender age, has been cast in the role of being somewhat different from the rest of her school friends. There is no possible justification for this highly embarrassing situation, because Siobhan is no different from her friends and, therefore, should be treated in the same way.
The categories of person covered by the EEC regulations are explained in the leaflet SA /28/30 /June 1979 published by the Department of Health and Social

Security. Briefly, to be covered for reciprocal medical care one must be a United Kingdom national and currently insured as an employed person. Siobhan is a United Kingdom national—she was born here and has never lived anywhere else. Being a child, Siobhan obviously cannot be insured, but children are normally covered by virtue of their parents' qualifications.
At this stage the difficulties began. Although Siobhan is a full British national, her father is a Norwegian national who married a British girl and established the family home here in Gateshead 16 years ago. In almost every respect this is an ordinary, normal British family. Siobhan's father is gainfully employed. He pays his full national insurance contributions and pays all the taxes required of him. He is exactly like millions of other fathers throughout the land. He meets in full his family, economic and social responsibilities. Because he has not chosen to renounce his Norwegian citizenship, his children are discriminated against in a very embarrassing way.
When Siobhan has been abroad on other occasions, she has travelled on her mother's British passport. During my inquiries into the circumstances of the case, I discovered that she could have been treated in the same way as the other children on the visit if her mother, who is a United Kingdom national, had been currently employed and insured.
Like millions of other mothers who have a young family to care for, Siobhan's mother is not insured. Her full-time occupation is that of looking after the family and the home. This is a classic "Catch 22" situation. The father is insured. He pays all his United Kingdom taxes but is not a United Kingdom citizen. The mother is a British subject but is not insured because of her family responsibilities. In the meantime, the poor, innocent child must suffer. The EEC regulations are in need of urgent amendment in order to clear up this anomaly and many others that undoubtedly exist. Once a person is covered, his dependants are also covered, irrespective of nationality and of whether the covered person travels with them. If one can believe it, stateless persons and refugees are covered.
I do not claim that that should not be the case. However, I strongly maintain that the claims of Siobhan Jernskaw are immeasurably more justified. This single case highlights the anomaly that exists. There must be many more similar cases. I strongly urge the Minister to use all the power at the Government's disposal to bring about changes and to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I was particularly interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan), as my two children will shortly go overseas on a school holiday. I could well imagine their concern—and, indeed, mine—if they were to be confronted with the problem just described. I welcome the initiative that the hon. Gentleman took in recommending the option of private insurance and in enabling the girl to go on holiday as she had planned. He is to be commended for giving the correct advice to his constituent. I commend him also on the way that he has presented the case.
I welcome the opportunity of explaining the basis on which United Kingdom nationals may receive medical care when on holiday in other member States of the European Community.
The National Health Service provides care only while a person is in the United Kingdom. If he should be taken ill or have an accident while abroad, he will usually have to pay the full costs of treatment. However, the European Community has regulations which enable the majority of citizens to get urgent medical treatment free, or at reduced cost, during visits to other member States from the sickness insurance scheme of the country concerned, on exactly the same terms as its own insured people.
As I will explain, not everyone is covered by the Community regulations. Medical treatment in other countries can be extremely expensive, and my Department advises those who are not covered by the regulations to take out adequate private insurance to cover emergencies. Travel agents and insurance brokers are accustomed to giving advice in those cases.
The question of entitlement under or cover by the regulations is, I fear, rather complicated, because the purpose of those

regulations is to co-ordinate the social security schemes of nine individual member States. I emphasise that the aim is to co-ordinate, not to harmonise, and there are bound to be difficulties where national provisions and national priorities differ. The regulations were revised in the light of experience of their operation even before we entered. They reflect largely the insurance-based health care schemes of the original Six, and on joining we had to accept them as they stood.
It will be necessary for me to give some explanation of the regulations before I can explain the action taken in the case of Siobhan Jernskaw, which has given rise to this debate.
The arrangements for free or reduced-cost medical care for visitors to other EEC countries are made under the EEC regulations 1408/71 and 574/72
on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community.
While the EEC regulations provide cover for medical care in a variety of circumstances, the most commonly used provision is that for the visitor who, while still employed in and contributing to the social security scheme of his "home" country or in receipt of benefits as the result of such employment and contributions—for example, retirement pension —goes for a short period, for example, on holiday or business, to another member State. If he falls ill, and provided that he is covered by the EEC regulations, the visitor is entitled to immediately necessary treatment from doctors and hospitals operating under that State's national medical care scheme.
Treatment is given on the terms and conditions that apply to insured people of the other country. To ensure that he receives free or reduced-cost care under the EEC arrangements, the visitor must usually show the authorities of the other country a certificate of entitlement to treatment—form E111.
It is the duty of the appointed "competent institution" in each of the member States to issue certificates only to those people to whom the EEC regulations apply. My Department is the competent institution responsible for the issue of forms El11 in the United Kingdom.
As the EEC regulations do not apply to everyone, the certificate of entitlement


cannot be issued without confirmation that the applicant is a person covered by the regulations. Therefore, a form of application containing statements giving such confirmation is necessary. That is incorporated in an explanatory leaflet, SA28/30:
Medical treatment for visitors to other EEC countries".

Mr. Harry Cowans: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make out a case, but to a 13-year-old child leaflet XYZ does not make a great deal of sense. Can the hon. Gentleman defend the situation where a man living in this country pays a contribution lawfully geared by the NHS and suddenly finds that he is not fully covered? The man has paid his dues and yet a 13-year-old child suddenly finds that she is different from her people. All the leaflets and numbers in the world cannot explain that.

Sir G. Young: I hope to outline the action that the Government are taking to try to remedy the injustice. The case that I was developing was that it is not within this Government's power to alter regulations that apply to other countries. We have to proceed by consent.
The leaflet that provoked the hon. Gentleman to intervene explains who is covered by the EEC regulations and how and when to apply for form EIII, and the procedure to obtain treatment in each of the other countries is summarised.
The sickness insurance schemes of the Community countries vary and none is comparable with the NHS. Nevertheless, most member countries provide their insured people with free medical and hospital treatment—although, as in the United Kingdom, there are some charges for dental treatment and medicines—and similar treatment is therefore available to visitors from the other EEC countries.
Three countries—France, Belgium and Luxembourg—have national sickness insurance schemes which require their insured people to be personally responsible for a proportion—usually 25 to 30 per cent.—of the costs of any treatment received.
Visitors to countries which require payment of a part of the costs of any treat-

ment are advised to take out private insurance to cover that risk. Forms E1ll are generally issued from local social security offices, which also hold stocks of leaflet SA28/30. There is a provision in the EEC regulations that if a visitor does not obtain form El11 before going to another EEC country, and requires treatment there, the sickness insurance institute of the country concerned will apply on his behalf for the form El11 to the sickness institute with which the visitor is insured. In the case of a visitor from the United Kingdom, that would be to our overseas branch at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. If for any reason use of this procedure is impractical, and thus full charges are made for treatment, the visitor may apply on return to his home country for a refund of the costs.
Article 2 of regulation 1408/71 provides that the regulations shall apply to workers
who are nationals of one of the member States or stateless persons or refugees residing within the Community and also to members of their families".
In other words, in order to have access to social security and health benefits in other member States, it is necessary for two conditions to be fulfilled. The first of these is the nationality condition. The regulations do not apply to people living and working in the Community who are not nationals of one of the member States, although there is provision to cover stateless persons or refugees residing within the Community and their families.
On signing the Treaty of Accession to the European Community, Her Majesty's Government made a declaration that, so far as the United Kingdom was concerned, the term "nationals" should, for the EEC purposes, be taken to refer to persons who were citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, or British subjects not possessing that citizenship, or the citizenship of any other Commonwealth country or territory, who, in either case, have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and are therefore exempt from United Kingdom immigration control; and persons who are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies by birth or by registration or naturalisation in Gibraltar, or whose father was so born, registered or naturalised.
A person who is a United Kingdom national for EEC purposes will hold a


British passport endorsed at the top of page 5 as follows:
Holder has the right of abode in the United Kingdom".
Persons who are United Kingdom nationals for EEC purposes, but who hold British passports issued before the United Kingdom's accession, may apply to the Home Office to have the endorsement added.
The second condition is that the regulations apply only to "workers" and their families, and this is related to employment. Briefly, the following groups come under the heading of "workers" for the purposes of the regulations: those currently insured as employed persons, and those who are employed but are not liable to pay contributions; those who have at some time in the past paid contributions as an employed person, and are now paying contributions as self-employed persons; those who are not working but who have, in the past, paid contributions as an employed person and are now either paying non-employed contributions or are receiving a social security benefit or pension. The Department's leaflet SA28/30 sets out in detail the conditions for cover.
These conditions are, I accept, complex. But this arises, as I have said, first of all because the regulations were designed to meet the needs of the original Six in co-ordinating their legislation, and they cannot therefore be expected, even after adaptation, to fit in as neatly with our rather different national health and social security schemes. In the second place, it has proved possible, with experience of the regulations—which are made under article 51 of the Treaty of Rome—to extend the meaning to cover various categories of people who are currently self-employed or non-employed but have at some time been employed. It is in the nature of case law that such extension, whilst to the advantage of individuals, complicates the rules.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Community's social security regulations do not cover everyone. The majority of self-employed and some non-employed individuals are, as a result of the case law decisions, now covered, but there are still a number excluded from the scope of the regulations and we have been negotiating in Brussels for some time to have the

regulations extended so that the self-and non-employed, and their dependants, from this country should also have access to treatment of immediate necessity through the State health schemes of other member countries when visiting them. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that amendment is needed. These negotiations continue.
A draft regulation to this end is at present under consideration in the Council, but we have met more difficulty, and therefore delay, than we originally expected. Other member States have reasons which they consider, in their particular national contexts, give rise to difficulty in accepting the charges proposed. I accept this, but we have put a lot of effort into this. The Commission has given us assistance and other member States are cooperating in an endeavour to solve the problems which have arisen. I therefore hope to make progress and reach agreement. When we do, all EEC nationals resident in the United Kingdom will be entitled to medical care of immediate necessity when visiting other EEC countries.
I turn to the case under discussion. Siobhan Jernskaw is 13 years old, born in the United Kingdom of a British mother and a Norwegian father. As is usual for a dependent child, on application for a certificate of entitlement for her, form E111, covering a visit to Italy, was made by her father. This was sent with a number of applications for other children by the headmaster of St. John Fisher comprehensive school to the Department's Gateshead office on 5 March 1980.
Following the usual procedures, the application was considered and it was found that Mr. Jernskaw was not a national of an EEC country and form El11 could not, therefore, be issued to cover his daughter's visit to Italy. A written notice of the reason for rejection of the application was sent to Mr. Jernskaw on 7 March 1980. In a subsequent telephone conversation with him the possibility of cover being provided for his daughter through Mrs. Jernskaw was suggested but, although a United Kingdom national, his wife does not meet the "workers" condition as she has not been in employment for a number of years. As is usual in such cases, the father was advised to take out private insurance to cover Siobhan's visit. I am content that the action taken by the Gateshead local office was right.

Mr. Robert Parry: Does the Minister agree that the various circulars and regulations to which he has referred are typical of EEC gobbledegook?

Sir G. Young: I prefaced my remarks by saying that the regulations were exceedingly complex. I should prefer my own description of them rather than "gobbledegook". However, they are the regulations with which we have to cope. We are seeking to get them amended to deal with this case. It is a matter of regret that Siobhan, who was born in and has lived in the United Kingdom, is not eligible under the EEC regulations for medical treatment while visiting another member State.
I think that there is no disagreement between us. As I have explained, we are aiming to remedy the situation by having the regulations extended. If the extension to the regulations as presently drafted is agreed, Siobhan will be covered both in her own right and because her mother would gain entitlement.
However, people like Siobhan's father will still be outside the scope of the regu-

lations because they are not EEC nationals. The United Kingdom does not have the power to grant nationals of third countries living within its territory access to Community social security benefits. Only the Community as a whole is able to do this through co-operation agreements with third country Governments, which would, of course, need to be reciprocal.
Mr. Jernskaw is Norwegian. Norway has not joined the Community and nor has it made an association agreement with the Community which would give him cover.
I accept the deep sense of injustice that this girl must feel. The Government recognise her case as an anomaly. We have put specific proposals before the Community for extending the regulations so that the anomaly may be removed and a fairer situation is brought about. I ask hon. Members to bear with us while we seek to persuade the other member countries to make the much-needed alteration in the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past One o'clock.